ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND SKILLS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Manufacturing

Tristram Hunt: What recent steps his Department has taken to support the manufacturing sector.

Vincent Cable: The Government are taking action to support and grow modern manufacturing in the UK by encouraging higher levels of innovation exports, business investment and technical skills.

Tristram Hunt: In the last few weeks, five ceramic and brick companies have gone bust in the UK, including the Jesse Shirley bone china works in my constituency. The energy-intensive industry measures announced in the autumn statement did little for our pottery industry. Can we now have some movement from the Government on capital allowances for the ceramic sector, which is a vital part of our manufacturing industry?

Vincent Cable: I will look at the specific issue of the ceramics industry. I know that the hon. Gentleman was involved in promoting an anti-dumping action. We considered the matter carefully, and there were not sufficient grounds to support the rather disproportionate action advocated by the European Commission. Indeed, the Chinese market share has remained pretty unchanged over the past decade. However, we will certainly consider what else can be done to help the industry.

Laurence Robertson: Is the Secretary of State aware of the excellent cutting-edge technology in my constituency in the aerospace industry? Is he also aware that one of the biggest problems that the industry has is in attracting young people into manufacturing? What can he do to encourage that?

Vincent Cable: I was in the west country just over a week ago looking at the aerospace industry, which is a considerable success story. My hon. Friend is quite right that one of the constraints is the need for skilled manpower, which is why in our rapidly growing apprenticeship programme we are setting aside funding specifically for advanced apprenticeships in engineering skills of the kind that firms in his constituency need.

Adrian Bailey: There is an increasing body of evidence to show that small manufacturing companies are not only having difficulty in accessing finance to expand but are discouraged from applying for it because of a lack of confidence in
	the ability to sell any increased production. What is the Secretary of State doing to persuade the Chancellor that the time is right for a stimulus in the demand side of the economy as well as provisions for the supply side?

Vincent Cable: A stimulus to demand is coming from two sources. One is rapidly growing export markets in emerging markets, where our export growth is very substantial. Manufacturers, including small and medium-sized enterprises, are taking a substantial part of that. In addition our monetary policy, which is supported by the Bank of England, with low short and long interest rates, quantitative easing and credit easing, is supporting demand.

Matthew Hancock: In his efforts to support manufacturing, will the Secretary of State agree that high executive pay that rewards not success but failure can inhibit growth, and that dealing with it is an important part of supporting manufacturing, financial services and other parts of the economy?

Vincent Cable: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the point is very well made. There is now a remarkable consensus. We have had evidence to the inquiry that I initiated into executive pay from, among others, the CBI, showing a high level of social responsibility and an acknowledgment that much executive pay has been disproportionate and unrelated to performance in the past. We intend to reform that.

Iain Wright: Mr Speaker,
	“Germany has had an industrial strategy as well as an economic strategy. Applied with huge consistency of purpose. This has greatly helped German industry plan for the future. Let us compare this with the position in the UK…In terms of industrial policy there are serious deficiencies.”
	Those are not my words, but those of Lord Heseltine in a speech only a couple of weeks ago. Given yesterday’s dire figures from the Office for National Statistics, which showed the biggest output drop in manufacturing since April, and three times the fall forecast by analysts, is it not time the Secretary of State listened to Lord Heseltine and provided a comprehensive well-planned industrial strategy for the long term that supports British manufacturing and helps it become more competitive?

Vincent Cable: I often wonder which Opposition Front Bencher will be courageous enough to talk about manufacturing, reminding the House that we lost 1.7 million jobs in manufacturing in 13 years of a Labour Government, and manufacturing’s share of the economy shrank from 18% to 10%. We are addressing that, and I certainly listen to Lord Heseltine, who has an office in my Department. We frequently interact, and he has some very good suggestions.
	We are pursuing support for innovation through the advanced technology innovation centre, pursuing support for advanced apprenticeships, on which we are doing a great deal, and co-financing private investment through the regional growth fund and the Green investment bank, which is due to start. As I announced yesterday, we are also considerably increasing support for supply chains using a new £125 million fund.

Employment Law

Brandon Lewis: What recent progress his Department has made on its employment law review being undertaken as part of the red tape challenge.

Marcus Jones: What recent progress his Department has made on its employment law review being undertaken as part of the red tape challenge.

Julian Smith: What recent progress his Department has made on its employment law review being undertaken as part of the red tape challenge.

Edward Davey: We have made excellent progress with our employment law review. Our radical package includes streamlining the employment tribunals system, doubling the qualifying period for unfair dismissal, promoting early conciliation and mediation, and simplifying compromise agreements. We have also called for evidence on TUPE and collective redundancies as part of our wide reforms.

Brandon Lewis: For many years, small and medium-sized enterprises in particular have felt that they are caught in the stranglehold of gold-plated red tape when it comes to growing and employing more people. Will the Minister give grounds for optimism to companies that want the freedom to employ more people and grow, particularly with reference to TUPE, which he mentioned?

Edward Davey: The Government’s strategy is to ensure that we are not gold-plating. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have been pleased that on 23 November we published a call for evidence on the TUPE regulations, which he mentioned. It is available on the Department’s website and I encourage all right hon. and hon. Members to respond.

Marcus Jones: I recently met local business people at a constituency event sponsored by the Federation of Small Businesses, and they told me that they were apprehensive about taking on additional employees because of the culture of employment tribunals, to which employees can take even the most spurious claims without any personal risk whatever. What can the Minister do to address that issue, which, if tackled, would encourage more employers to take on extra staff?

Edward Davey: We have listened to both employer and employee concerns about the cost and complexity of going to employment tribunals, and believe that our reforms will make a positive difference to both parties. We have set out our conclusions and our response to the “Resolving Workplace Disputes” consultation. Critical aspects of our new approach include a major new emphasis on mediation and a new pre-claim conciliation service by ACAS, and, finally, a fundamental review of the rules and procedures is now being undertaken by Lord Justice Underhill.

Julian Smith: Compensated no-fault dismissal could be a great fillip to very small businesses and the employment market. Will the Minister outline the timetable for the Government’s call for evidence and reassure the House that he is completely open-minded on the policy?

Edward Davey: As my hon. Friend knows—the Chancellor announced this in the autumn statement—we will be publishing a call for evidence on the case for and against a new compensated no-fault dismissal for micros. The Government have an open mind on that, but we are especially keen to ensure that there are no unintended consequences. My hon. Friend will be mindful that the unfair dismissal law was introduced by a previous Conservative Government to improve industrial relations.

Jim Sheridan: As part of the sham review of employment legislation, has the Minister had any consultations with the trade unions or others who believe in effective employment legislation? If he has, what was the outcome? If he has not, why not?

Edward Davey: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I regularly meet Brendan Barber from the TUC. People from the trade union movement widely responded to the “Resolving Workplace Disputes” consultation, and we have looked at those responses.

Fiona O'Donnell: The Minister will be aware that those who work with children and vulnerable adults can play a vital role in their protection. What is he doing to ensure that new employees, who often see problems with established bad practice, are protected if they decide to become whistleblowers?

Edward Davey: There is already whistleblowing legislation; I believe that it was passed by the previous Government. We would therefore advise employees in the situation that the hon. Lady describes to look at that.

Ian Murray: The Secretary of State and the Minister are obviously at loggerheads with Downing street over their proposals on changes to employment law, and have been forced to consult on no-fault dismissal. Lord Heseltine believes that such a measure would
	“make life rougher and tougher for large numbers of people”;
	Citizens Advice described it as a rogue’s charter; only 6% of SMEs consider employment law as a factor when employing people; and the Secretary of State himself has said that there was already a “reasonably good balance” between rights and flexibility in Britain. So why is his Department—the Department for no growth—trying to make it easier to fire rather than hire people?

Edward Davey: The truth is that the Government are making it easier to hire people. We understand the importance of fair, efficient and flexible labour markets. We will protect those because that is in our country’s interest. I should tell the hon. Gentleman that we are working very closely with colleagues across the coalition on all aspects of our employment law review. This coalition is more together than the Labour party was when it was in government.

Innovation and Research

Julian Huppert: When he plans to publish his innovation and research strategy.

Graham Evans: When he plans to publish his innovation and research strategy.

David Willetts: With permission, Mr Speaker, I propose to answer this question with question 13—

Mr Speaker: I am reluctant to argue with Two Brains, but I think the link is with question 14.

David Willetts: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	I am pleased to announce that the Government have today published our innovation and research strategy for growth.

Julian Huppert: I thank the Minister for publishing that statement. In 2004 I was awarded a DTI Smart award for innovation. That excellent scheme supported small companies in developing risky innovative products, but over the years the financial support available was watered down and success rates fell. Will his strategy reverse that and support SMEs that have not been supported by the Technology Strategy Board?

David Willetts: Indeed, and I believe that my hon. Friend’s proposal was for a biotech company that collected virgin female fruit flies, which I am sure was an excellent example of curiosity-driven research. I can confirm that we are bringing back the Smart awards scheme on a nationwide basis, properly financed.

Graham Evans: Fostering research and innovation is absolutely essential to growth and to rebalancing our economy, and I am proud that the Government are doing so much to support Daresbury science innovation campus in my constituency, including the announcement of a new enterprise zone. Can the Minister outline what support will be provided for small and medium-sized businesses in this area?

David Willetts: I recognise the strong support that my hon. Friend gives Daresbury, which I visited with him only a couple of months ago. Indeed, we will put more funding into Daresbury because of its excellent role in national computing infrastructure, and we will support small businesses in particular through the infrastructure and innovation plan that we have launched today.

David Lammy: Does the Minister accept that we can have no research and innovation without UK postgraduates? His strategy says nothing about the decline in taught postgraduate courses or the implications of fees at postgraduate level in the UK.

David Willetts: We are committed to postgraduate education in the UK, and of course we will continue to review the implications for it as our higher education reforms come through, but at the moment we are seeing an increase in the number of postgraduate students in the UK—a record of which we can be proud.

Chi Onwurah: Eighteen months into a Government supposedly focused on growth, we finally have a paper focused on innovation—the engine of growth. We welcome it and will consider it carefully. However, we have seen that this Government’s
	fine words are not matched by action. The director of the CBI recently described their action on solar panels as the
	“third smack about the head”
	for investors in renewables. In China, the US, India, Germany and Finland Governments are taking action to create large-scale technological and market opportunities in renewables, ICT, pharma and nanotechnology. What real action will the Government take as a result of the report?

David Willetts: The report that we are publishing today is a list of the actions that we have already taken and the further actions that we are proposing to take. That includes technology innovation centres, including specific provision for renewables. It also includes the reintroduction of the Smart awards, which were run into the sand under the previous Government, and a research and development tax credit that will be worth more than £1 billion to companies large and small.

Exports (SMEs)

Gordon Henderson: What steps his Department is taking to help small and medium-sized businesses to access export markets.

Mark Prisk: UK Trade & Investment has set out a new export strategy of some £45 million, which will double the number of small companies helped each year. The strategy includes five financial products, bespoke services for middle-sized firms and a collaborative approach to accessing new export markets.

Gordon Henderson: I welcome that assurance from the Minister, but an exporter in my constituency has for years been obtaining certificates of origin from our local chamber of commerce, using a formal declaration from his supplier. Recently he applied for a new certificate, but was told that one could not be issued without a declaration from the manufacturer of the goods. That is causing my constituent a big problem, because his supplier is loth to provide details about his manufacturer for fear that my constituent might obtain his goods direct. What can my hon. Friend do to make it easier for exporters to export—and when changes are made to the rules, can exporters at least be given adequate notice?

Mark Prisk: I am concerned about the instance that my hon. Friend mentions. The rules on certification of origin have not changed, but they are subject to local management and interpretation. It sounds as if that might be the problem. I am keen to help all exporters, so perhaps my hon. Friend will submit further details to me and I will look personally into the matter.

Gareth Thomas: The Government have cut by 25% the funding for small and medium-sized enterprises to attend vital overseas trade shows to help them win new business. How will that help exports?

Mark Prisk: As I said at the beginning, the new export strategy enables us to double the number of companies that we reach and support. In addition, five new finance
	products have been put on to the market. We have commitments of £242 million for those products, so there is a positive layer of action, and we can make real progress in the years to come.

Chuka Umunna: At a previous Question Time, the Business Secretary was right to say that, historically, SMEs have not been as involved in exporting as larger companies. With that in mind, earlier this year he launched the export enterprise finance guarantee scheme, a programme run out of his Department, and we were told that that would help lots of SMEs to access export finance. Will the Secretary of State tell us how many companies have been helped by the scheme since it was announced with a great fanfare 10 months ago?

Mark Prisk: Sadly, the hon. Gentleman will have to make do with the Minister of State rather than the Secretary of State. We have been able to deliver some £242 million across the five products, and we have also been able to ensure that with the pilot, the export enterprise finance guarantee scheme, in which there have been a number of changes, we have been able to deliver some £2 million. It is important to bear in mind the fact that the export enterprise finance guarantee scheme is a pilot; the other four are actually full products.

Chuka Umunna: The answer to my question is that just four companies have benefited from that export scheme. That is another example of the failure of the Minister’s Department to improve access to finance for small businesses. Of course access to finance in general helps SMEs to grow and expand into different export markets, and we were told that Project Merlin would ease credit conditions for small businesses—but net lending to businesses by banks has contracted in nine of the past 12 months under this Government. Merlin failed, so they are now giving credit easing a try, but the effectiveness of credit easing is dependent on whether the banks choose to participate. What guarantees can the Minister give us that they will participate in the scheme and increase net lending to businesses as a result?

Mark Prisk: In the first three quarters, the numbers on net lending stand at £66 million. [Interruption.] What I am trying to say to the hon. Gentleman is that we are committed, through Merlin, to ensure that lending this year is greater than last year. He needs to be careful in this area, because, as he knows, such schemes are subject to demand. [Interruption.] He asked about credit easing, and I will come to that point. I say to the hon. Gentleman that the £20 billion that the Chancellor has put forward is substantially important and will bring about an important increase. What the Opposition need to remember is that we are actually delivering an increase in lending this year over last year. They did not deliver that. We are, and that is the difference.

Life Science Discoveries

Margot James: What steps his Department is taking to support the commercialisation of new discoveries in life sciences.

David Willetts: The UK life sciences sector employs 170,000 people with a turnover of £50 billion, but it is facing
	enormous challenges, which is why the Prime Minister launched an ambitious new life sciences strategy on Monday. That includes a £180 million catalyst fund to aid commercialisation of new discoveries. We have also improved the regime for clinical trials in the interests of patients and opened up the NHS to innovation.

Margot James: I very much welcome the life sciences strategy published by the Government earlier this week. What plans does my right hon. Friend now have to support the development of geographic clusters that will foster collaboration between industry, the NHS and academia?

David Willetts: My hon. Friend has absolutely described what a cluster is; I congratulate her. We support them. They are important for innovation and growth. Indeed, in the proposals published today, we are talking about making it easier for groups of institutions to come together to bid for funding from research councils, and also our enlightened Treasury has agreed that in future there will not be VAT on cost-sharing arrangements in which groups of institutions come together to share services in the interests of efficiency.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister will know that in life sciences and many other areas of innovation there are lots of small companies, often in partnership with universities. Will he comment on the fact that many of those partnerships tell me that with the demise of the regional development agencies they have no access to a large amount of money held in Europe, essentially for innovation? There are billions of pounds that they cannot access.

David Willetts: The catalyst fund that I referred to in my previous answer is aimed specifically at getting financial support to new start-ups, and will help finance them through the so-called “valley of death” before they can get commercial funding. At the Competitiveness Council in Brussels on Tuesday, I argued that European research funding should be more easily accessible for small and medium-sized enterprises. The best way to achieve that is by cutting bureaucracy and the complexity in the current arrangements for accessing European funding. That is what I urged on the Commission.

Bank of Credit and Commerce International

Keith Vaz: What recent steps he has taken to ensure that the liquidation of Bank of Credit and Commerce International is complete.

Edward Davey: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to the BCCI liquidators about the progress of the BCCI liquidation earlier this year, following his meeting with the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that a closure plan has been published on the liquidators’ website at www.bcci.info. This website is updated as and when there are any developments in the liquidation.

Keith Vaz: It is now 20 years since the bank went into liquidation, in which time the liquidators, Deloitte Touche, its solicitors, Lovells, and other professionals have received
	£1.2 billion in fees. Will the Minister thank the Secretary of State for writing that letter and ask him whether he would be prepared to secure his place in history, or at least to act as Santa Claus to the victims of BCCI, so that finally this bank can be closed and the liquidators will cease to bleed it of the last remnants of its money?

Edward Davey: I think that my right hon. Friend already has his place in history. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) knows that the BCCI creditors have been repaid more than 85% of what they were owed at the outset of liquidation, and a final dividend—estimated to be about 3%—is expected to be paid in April or May 2012. He will also know that control of the BCCI liquidation is a matter for the liquidation committee, and ultimately the courts, not for the Secretary of State, and that the liquidators are trying to bring this long period to an end.

Business Start-ups

Harriett Baldwin: What steps he is taking to assist unemployed people to start new businesses.

Greg Clark: The new enterprise allowance is now available nationwide and is providing access to business mentors and financial support to help unemployed people start their own businesses. On 14 November we launched My New Business, a service on the Business Link website, providing help for everyone looking to start a new business.

Harriett Baldwin: As QinetiQ in my constituency has restructured, many of the brilliant brains employed there have started new businesses in a range of different areas. May I invite the Minister to Malvern to help back my campaign for phase 4 of the Malvern Hills science park as a further incubator?

Greg Clark: It would be a delight to visit Malvern. I know that my hon. Friend is trying—successfully, given the number of high-tech businesses there—to market Malvern as a cyber-valley. We know that silicon valley has prospered because of the links between existing high-tech firms and new ones, and I know that that is what she wants to achieve.

Gordon Banks: What guarantees can the Minister provide that the banks will actually lend to newly formed businesses run by previously unemployed people? They are not lending to existing businesses, so why should they lend to new ones?

Greg Clark: As the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), said earlier, the intention is—and the banks are delivering on this—that they increase lending to small businesses year on year. That is part of the loan guarantee scheme announced in the autumn statement, and we are determined to deliver on it.

Regional Growth Fund

Esther McVey: What assessment he has made of the effect of the regional growth fund on private sector investment.

Vincent Cable: In April we announced that the regional growth fund would conditionally support 50 projects, amounting to £450 million of Government investment and leveraging an estimated £2.7 billion of private sector investment. In October we announced that 126 projects would receive conditional funding of £950 million, leveraging an estimated £6 billion of private sector investment.

Esther McVey: I welcome the regional growth fund, in rounds 1 and 2 of which, companies on Merseyside, including Stobart, Pilkington, Liverpool Vision and Trinity Mirror, have done very well. Wirral Investment Network, a business network for smaller companies, wants to know by what routes it can apply to the regional growth fund.

Vincent Cable: Our estimate is that roughly a third of all regional growth fund money is going to SMEs, and there are several routes through which it goes. First, there are packets of SME loans, one of which was in Liverpool, while another is in Plymouth. Indeed, I saw that one a couple of weeks ago, and it is going extraordinarily well. There are specifically tailored schemes—for example, the RBS-HSBC scheme linked to asset finance—and programme bids, as in Manchester, all of which are targeted at SMEs.

Geoffrey Robinson: The Secretary of State will be aware that in the last round an SME in Coventry was turned down for a major investment from the regional growth fund. Despite the fact that the council and, more importantly, the local enterprise partnership were in full support, the company was turned down—I am not particularly grumbling about the decision, disappointed though we were, of course—on the grounds that the ownership was wrong. Will the Minister put in place better criteria for sifting schemes locally and regionally? The company wasted an awful lot of time and money in preparing its bid.

Vincent Cable: I would certainly be happy to look into the background of that particular case. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have an impartial process. Applications come to Ministers and then go through Sir Ian Wrigglesworth and Lord Heseltine, who sift and assess them properly. There is a new round for the regional growth fund, and if the project that the hon. Gentleman mentions can be reworked, we would certainly be very happy to look at it.

Graphene

George Freeman: How he proposes that his Department’s investment in graphene will be spent. [R]

David Willetts: Graphene is the thinnest, lightest, strongest and most conductive material known to man. Its discovery in Manchester in 2001 is testament to our strong science base and opens up a wide range of possibilities. That is
	why we have committed £50 million to create a new UK graphene hub to focus on its commercialisation. The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council and the Technology Strategy Board are now developing a detailed business case, which will be submitted to the Government shortly. We expect funding to start next year.

George Freeman: I welcome that announcement. Does the Minister agree that the investment of £50 million in a world-class hub is testament to the Government’s serious commitment to a rebalanced economy and a regional growth strategy? Will he agree to place a sample of graphene—like this—in the Library for the edification of us all?

Mr Speaker: The use of such props is on the whole discouraged, but we will let the hon. Gentleman off on this occasion.

David Willetts: I do not think that that is quite life science—nor is it supposed to be life-size, because it is one atom. I have some graphene in my office, and I would be very happy to show it to people who want to know what has been discovered. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As a result of the Chancellor’s announcement we are now able to invest in labs that will ensure that researchers can develop and research the applications of this important material.

Mr Speaker: May I appeal to Members not to pass that rather unglamorous specimen around the Chamber? The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), to whom I have been generous, should secrete his graphene away, and behave with the tact and discretion for which he was previously renowned.

Graham Stringer: I beg to disagree, Mr Speaker. Graphene is very glamorous, and it is a fantastic discovery, made in Manchester. The Minister will be aware from his appearances before the Science and Technology Committee that there is a huge imbalance between the public investment in science in the golden triangle between Oxford, Cambridge and London, and investment in the rest of the country. Is this not a great opportunity to invest the vast bulk of that £50 million in Manchester, where the two Nobel laureates discovered graphene?

David Willetts: The hon. Gentleman makes a clear case. Of course, the issue is now being investigated by the EPSRC and the TSB, but we recognise the crucial role that Manchester played in the discovery, and I am sure that its role will continue.

Mr Speaker: Of course I readily concede that something unglamorous can also be very important. I call Penny Mordaunt. [ Laughter. ] Order. I am delighted that the House is in such a good mood.

Radar Satellites

Penny Mordaunt: What assessment he has made of the benefit to UK business of the investment in low-cost radar satellites announced in the autumn statement.

David Willetts: Yes, we have made an assessment of the benefits to business of investing in low-cost radar satellites. This is an important investment of £21 million, which we hope will enable business investment to follow on, including possibly in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Mr Speaker: I was referring to the item, not to a human being. I call Penny Mordaunt.

Penny Mordaunt: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	Earth observation satellites are critical in helping developing countries manage humanitarian and environmental crises. Does my right hon. Friend see merit in giving such countries British technology or satellite time—provided it is the best for the job, and it usually is—rather than having ring-fenced funding to purchase such services from a third country?

David Willetts: That is a very interesting idea. It is absolutely right that British satellite technology plays a greater role than is recognised in ensuring that we have information about the sites of disasters. Earlier this year we chaired the disaster monitoring committee, which ensured that satellite images were immediately available after the tsunami in Japan and after disasters elsewhere in the world. There are certainly imaginative ideas through which this role could be enhanced.

Adult and Community Learning

Sajid Javid: What steps he is taking to promote adult and community learning.

John Hayes: The Government are enthusiastically committed to adult and community learning. That is why we have protected the £210 million a year adult safeguarded budget. On 1 December we announced our intention to devolve its planning and accountability, so that local people are at the heart of deciding the learning offer. We will pilot different community learning trust models in 2012-13.

Sajid Javid: The Minister has been an excellent advocate of adult community learning. May I ask him how his pilot on community learning trusts is working at the moment? In particular, how has he engaged local communities to improve adult community learning?

John Hayes: We know, as W B Yeats knew, that education lights a fire that burns brightly. It certainly burns brightly in the hearts of Ministers. We have much to do in respect of adult community learning, which was derided by the last Government as mainly holiday Spanish. That was how the former Secretary of State described it. We will work with local communities. The first meeting to discuss models and timings will take place one week from today, and we intend to publish a prospectus in spring 2012. We are delivering.

Kevin Brennan: The Minister and I have jousted about Yeats before, and I should tell him that he did not share the Minister’s politics, which might disappoint him. There is a danger of his policy becoming a fig leaf around adult and community learning.
	Will he undertake to work from the centre with other ministerial colleagues, particularly for older people in care homes because of the incredible impact that adult and community learning can have on health outcomes for those older people?

John Hayes: One reason why I, along with the Secretary of State, have defended adult and community learning is due to its effect on things such as physical well-being, community health, mental health and so forth. It is certainly true that we will need to take those things into full account in respect of the offer. I give that answer mindful that the hon. Gentleman, who was my predecessor, was himself a champion of adult and community learning.

Green Investment Bank

Glenda Jackson: What recent progress he has made on the Green investment bank.

Vincent Cable: The development of the Green investment bank is making good progress. Prior to its establishment, the Government are planning to invest in projects from April 2012, including in renewable energy and the non-domestic energy efficiency and waste sectors. We will announce the process for deciding the location of the bank shortly.

Glenda Jackson: There are reports that the Government have dramatically lowered their funding for this potentially innovative venture, so when, if ever, will what threatens to become a mere piggy bank be open for business?

Vincent Cable: Those reports are simply incorrect. The Government’s commitment was for £3 billion, and that remains the case. We expect the bank will have leveraged in another £15 billion by the end of this Parliament. That is our commitment, which we will stick to. I am relieved that Hampstead and Kilburn are not adding their names to the list of cities hoping to attract the Green investment bank.

Michael Crockart: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement of a few moments ago. May I press him to tell me and the poised Edinburgh Green investment bank bid team when he will publish the criteria for deciding the location for the bank and what those criteria are likely to contain?

Vincent Cable: We shall set out the process in the next few days. There are a great many bids from different cities and, indeed, some quite small towns around the country, all of which must be assessed properly and fairly.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will the Secretary of State confirm that investment in wind turbine technology is a potential recipient of Green investment bank funding? Gamesa has been considering locations in various parts of the United Kingdom for a major scheme with which it is proceeding, and has identified Leith, which is in my constituency, as a possible location. Will the Secretary of State work with the Scottish Government to try to bring this important facility to Scotland and to the UK?

Vincent Cable: That is exactly the kind of project that the bank will be considering, and a team of people are already preparing projects for submission.

Apprenticeships

Robert Halfon: What steps he is taking to ensure that apprenticeships offer a route to higher-level skills.

John Hayes: We are committed to expanding the proportion of apprenticeships that are at advanced and higher levels. Provisional 2010-11 data show that the number of advanced-level apprenticeships has risen by about two thirds. We have allocated some £19 million to support the development of new higher apprenticeships, which will dramatically extend the range of opportunities for apprenticeships up to degree level, and will create at least an additional 19,000 apprenticeships at the higher level.

Robert Halfon: Will the Minister support the parliamentary apprentice school which I founded with the charity New Deal of the Mind, and will he consider the similar idea of establishing a Government apprentice school using public contracts? Figures from the House of Commons Library show that if just one apprentice were hired for every £1 million public procurement, 280,000 apprenticeships would be created instantly and youth unemployment would be cut by a quarter.

John Hayes: I take the view that Government have a role and that procurement has a role as well. For that reason I have established a ministerial champions group for apprenticeships involving 14 Departments, we have explored the development of kitemarking for good employers who use apprenticeships and supply the public sector, and we have provided streamlined informational skills for companies that want to supply Government.
	My hon. Friend has been a great champion of apprenticeships, and has even taken on an apprentice himself. Let me again urge all Members to take on their own apprentices.

Mark Lancaster: What plans he has to encourage small and medium-sized businesses to offer apprenticeships.

John Hayes: As you can see, Mr Speaker, I am irrepressible.
	We have recently announced a new financial incentive of £1,500, which will help up to 40,000 small employers who have not previously engaged in the programme to take on a young apprentice. We are taking radical steps to speed up and simplify the process for employers, and to remove unnecessary paperwork and bureaucracy.

Mark Lancaster: While the Minister’s talents are obvious, some of us have hidden talents. I, for instance, am a pyrotechnician, and ran the family firework company for many years. We were always keen to take on apprentices, but it was hard to keep them in a long-term skilled job, and the paperwork involved in taking them on in the first place was very extensive. What can be done to help the situation?

John Hayes: As my hon. Friend will know, the number of apprenticeships has risen by 70% in his constituency. That does credit to him, and, as I think he will acknowledge, still greater credit to me.
	My hon. Friend asked what more we would do. We will strip out all unnecessary health and safety requirements, we will introduce those incentive payments to compensate small businesses, and I am determined to streamline every stage of the process. Tackling youth unemployment is a top priority for the Government: that is why we are focusing the apprenticeship budget on young people, which is where it can make the most difference.

College Enhanced Renewal Grant

George Eustice: What progress his Department has made in assessing applications by further education colleges for phase 2 of the enhanced renewal grant.

John Hayes: In August, I was delighted to confirm that the Government would make an extra £100 million available for a two-year college capital investment programme. The programme was launched by the Skills Funding Agency in September, applications were invited by November, and the agency is aiming to announce decisions on the enhanced renewal grant before Christmas. Speedy action, Mr Speaker: alacrity, combined with perspicacity.

George Eustice: Cornwall college in my constituency has recently used a new technique to refurbish and reclad one of the old buildings on its estate at a fraction of the cost of a rebuild, and would like to repeat the process on some of the rest of its estate. Does the Minister agree that procedures of that kind should be given priority?

John Hayes: My hon. Friend, who is a great champion of his local college and a great local Member of Parliament, has written to me about that very matter. I have his letter here. I am pleased to say that I have arranged to speak to him on Monday about the details of his question, and I can also tell him that as soon as I became the Minister we announced new capital funding. I do not say this with any joy—I say it more in sorrow and anger—but what a contrast with the last Government, who presided over a capital funding debacle.

Business Taxation

Edward Leigh: What assessment he has made of the effect on the growth of small and medium-sized enterprises of planned reductions in the level of taxation; and if he will make a statement.

Vincent Cable: Many SMEs will benefit from lower corporation tax, reforms to research and development tax credits, relief of business rates, increases in employer national insurance contribution thresholds and tax advantages in the 22 new enterprise zones.

Edward Leigh: We already have the longest tax code in the world. Does the Secretary of State accept that what business wants are not more allowances from the
	Government but across-the-board tax cuts so that they can get on with running their own business in their own way?

Vincent Cable: Many businesses, as I have just said, receive substantial tax cuts, which is absolutely right. As the economy progresses, there will be more, and there is also an exercise in tax simplification, the results of which will be announced at the beginning of next year.

Topical Questions

Sajid Javid: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Vincent Cable: The Department has a key role in supporting the rebalancing of the economy and business, to deliver growth while increasing skills and learning.

Sajid Javid: May I thank the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning for visiting my constituency of Bromsgrove and opening a £3.5 million extension to North East Worcestershire college? Will he update the House on what other investment plans he has for colleges up and down the country, and how that will promote young people’s life chances?

John Hayes: I said a few moments ago that we have made £100 million available. It will be spent quickly, and that will affect colleges across the country. I should like to thank my hon. Friend for being such a generous host when I visited NEW college in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Karen Lumley) was in attendance as well, because the college serves both constituencies. On that occasion, I had an opportunity to ride a Harley Davidson motorbike, and like that bike, the career of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) is powerful, speedy and impressive.

Mr Speaker: We are all intrigued by the Minister’s exploits, I am sure.

Shabana Mahmood: It is exactly one year on from the Government’s trebling of tuition fees to £9,000, and we can clearly see the disastrous impact of that decision. UCAS applications are down by 15%, and the Government have had to introduce the chaotic core and margin model to make up for the fact that they got their sums wrong. Is the Minister for Universities and Science aware that he has created a perfect storm for our world-class higher education sector, and why is he prepared to put our world-leading reputation at risk?

David Willetts: Our reforms will ensure that universities are well financed, and that there is more funding available for access than ever before. Perhaps the hon. Lady would explain to the House why she proposes to double fees and, at the same time, reduce the funding available for scholarships and access money.

Simon Hughes: It is clear to me that the more young people and adults hear about the actual facts about the
	funding for universities, the more likely they are to apply. Given that there are five weeks left before the conventional cut-off date for applications, will the Minister tell the House what the Government propose to do to make sure that young people and adults, whether full or part-time students, understand the benefits of applying to university.

David Willetts: I thank my right hon. Friend for the excellent work that he has done on this important subject. I can report to the House that 90% of schools and colleges have been visited by graduates explaining the facts of the system. In addition, they are reaching out to parents evenings. Every hon. Member has received a copy of the DVD that has gone to every school with the information that shows that no student has to pay up front to go to university.

Dennis Skinner: When the Secretary of State was talking about the running down of British industry, he failed to mention that, in the 1980s, the Thatcher Government employed MacGregor to come over here and close large parts of the steel industry, and he almost destroyed the whole mining industry. Does the Secretary of State not realise that, surrounded by all those Tories, he is a mini-MacGregor of his day, carrying out the dirty work of the Tories and overseeing the demise of the rest of British industry? He does it not for the money that MacGregor got but for a ministerial car and a red box.

Vincent Cable: After the hon. Gentleman’s previous contribution, I set up a visit to his constituency, which will take place, I think, in the first quarter of next year. I can discuss these matters in depth with him then, which I think is rather more than my Labour predecessor did. The hon. Gentleman has been a Member for a long time, but he has overlooked the fact that in the 13 years of Labour Government there was a decline in manufacturing output averaging 0.5% a year.

David Rutley: Returning to 2011, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to create the conditions for the pharmaceutical and life sciences sectors in the United Kingdom, including AstraZeneca in Macclesfield, to be able to compete more strongly in the global marketplace?

David Willetts: The life sciences strategy we produced earlier this week aims to rise to the challenge my hon. Friend identifies. In particular, there is an imaginative proposal under which 20 compounds that have been identified by AstraZeneca but are not currently being commercialised will be open to research by others, with a view to using them to create the medicines of the future.

Julie Hilling: Bolton university is excellent at recruiting and retaining large numbers of students from disadvantaged backgrounds. It is worried, however, about the future of the widening participation premium, which makes up 6.7% of its teaching grant. Can the Minister reassure them that that premium will be fully funded in 2012, 2013 and beyond?

David Willetts: We have to look at the Higher Education Funding Council for England teaching grant year by year, so no assurances can be given about the total teaching grant at this stage. That has never been possible
	under any Government. What I can tell the House is that the total amount of money going into access funding has increased significantly because of the increase in fees. It is now running at a higher level—£200 million higher—than ever before.

Stephen Phillips: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for Further Education, Skills and Lifelong Learning will agree with me not only about his own irrepressibility but also about the importance for economic growth of our meeting the training needs of businesses. What measures is he taking to reduce red tape and excessive micro-management in respect of further education colleges —a trend that so characterised the last Government—in order that they can respond to our economic needs?

John Hayes: The Foster report described the last Government’s policy as a galaxy of bureaucracy, oversight and inspection. By contrast, we are cutting red tape, streamlining funding systems, and giving colleges greater discretion to respond to the demands of employers and the needs of learners. I have recently published a document setting this out in detail. Copies are available in the Library of the House—and signed copies by application.

Naomi Long: Northern Ireland is the only region where employment law is devolved, an anomaly that in the past has led to the Northern Ireland position being largely ignored in the formulation of UK policy both in the transposition of European Union employment directives and in national agreements. Will the Minister assure us that he will work with the Minister for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland to provide a framework in which Northern Ireland interests can be addressed in any future developments in this area?

Edward Davey: The hon. Lady is absolutely right: our Department looks at the majority of employment law for the rest of Great Britain but not for Northern Ireland. However, I can assure her that officials from my Department are in regular contact with their counterparts in the Department for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland. Examples of that include frequent conversations during the consultation on resolving workplace disputes, and close working between the employment agency standards inspectorate and the equivalent team in Northern Ireland. Indeed, we are currently working with it to understand the impact of the agency workers directive, and we will continue to do so.

Mark Menzies: Will the Minister update me on what efforts are being taken to attract inward investment into enterprise zones such as that in Warton in my constituency?

Mark Prisk: We have made good progress on enterprise zones. I know that locally there is a team working together with UK Trade & Investment on specific live commercial projects, and I am hopeful of real progress in the next few months.

Gordon Banks: Last week we heard how Project Merlin had failed and was going to be bailed out by credit easing. How many banks have signed up to credit easing, how many small businesses will be helped by that, and will it be more successful than the business growth fund was?

Vincent Cable: The Merlin project certainly did not succeed in its central objective, which was to achieve growth in gross lending by banks. There has been a contraction in net lending for a variety of reasons, not least the fact that many companies are holding more cash. Credit easing will be commenced soon. The Treasury will maintain a metric of performance by individual banks, and this will lower the cost of capital for many of their customers. The cost of borrowing and covenanting, as much as access, has now become the central concern.

John Pugh: Will the Minister explain how revising TUPE will actually create more jobs, as opposed to facilitating outsourcing?

Edward Davey: My hon. Friend will know that there are mixed views in the business community about whether or not the current TUPE regulations are gold-plated, which is why we have called for evidence. We have not published a consultation with specific proposals as we want to have evidence from all stakeholders, so that when we make our proposals in a future consultation they will be well evidenced.

John Denham: May I draw the Secretary of State’s attention to the £150 million worth of entirely private investment that Associated British Ports wants to spend now to equip Southampton for the next generation of container ships? Instead of creating and supporting 2,000 or more jobs, this project is mired in red tape in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and its agencies. Will he speak to his colleagues to try to get this vital project under way?

Vincent Cable: Yes, I will certainly do that—that seems a very helpful intervention. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, logistics, including ports, were a major part of our work in the growth review. A lot is now happening to open up British ports and invest in them, and I will certainly pursue his inquiry.

Neil Carmichael: I am very much looking forward to welcoming the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), who is responsible for business and enterprise, to the festival for manufacturing in my constituency to celebrate what we have achieved in the constituency, and to promote more investment and employment. But one area that we need to focus on is the supply chain, so what are the Government planning to do to help with that?

Mark Prisk: I am pleased to say that not only will I be able to attend the Stroud manufacturing festival, which is an excellent example of the initiatives taken by those on this side of the House, but the Government have put in place a £125 million supply chain initiative. It builds on the work we have done in the automotive sector, it is
	a great opportunity and I hope it will be one of those areas where the Labour party will set aside the posturing and work with us positively.

Michael Connarty: I have been raising the issue of small businesses’ failure to be paid by large contractors. The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk) was good enough to write to me, but he said that more than 50% of the problem occurred because there continued to be a problem with effective customer management on the part of the supplier. In other words, the large companies were to be managed by the small company. Is it not time that we actually did what the Electrical Contractors Association has called for and make it compulsory for 30 days’ payment to be in every single contract for a small supplier?

Mark Prisk: In fact, the Labour party tried to do that at the very beginning—in 1998, I believe—and failed. What we are doing is using our procurement powers to make sure that government sets the standard. I think that that is the best way, but I am always happy to look at unreasonable behaviour by large corporations and I would be happy to look at any further details that the hon. Gentleman can provide.

Tessa Munt: The county of Avon was abolished in April 1996. The Somerset village of Shipham was never part of Avon and has always been in Somerset, so it is a constant irritation to my constituents that post, including that from all Government agencies and any organisation using the Royal Mail’s database, is addressed to Shipham in Avon. When complaints are made to the Royal Mail’s headquarters, they elicit the reply, “We like to give users an historical perspective.” That is complete tosh. The Royal Mail does not update its database and will not correct inaccuracies in the address details. Will the Minister wade into this ancient, decades-old dispute on behalf of the long-suffering villagers and get this bizarre—

Mr Speaker: Order. I think we have got the thrust of it.

Edward Davey: I am very grateful for my hon. Friend’s question. She will be aware that her constituents in this village share their concerns about postcode issues with many other residents in many other constituencies across the UK. I have raised this matter in the past with Royal Mail, and it believes that the costs of changing its systems would be disproportionate. Of course I will raise her point, but I do not want to raise her expectations.

Jim Shannon: The responsibility to promote adult and community learning in Northern Ireland is a devolved matter. Has the Minister considered linking with Northern Ireland’s Department for Employment and Learning to provide a strategy for the mutual benefit of both the UK mainland and Northern Ireland?

John Hayes: I do have regular discussions with my counterparts in the devolved Administrations. The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is an excellent one and I shall take action on it following questions today.

Karen Bradley: I am afraid that I am going to take the Minister back to the issue of postcodes, as many of my constituents contact me with their frustrations about the very wide range of postcodes in the Staffordshire Moorlands, which leads to problems with insurance, cold weather payments and the emergency services failing to find people. So would he be able to meet me and local representatives to discuss the possibility of creating and setting up a Staffordshire Moorlands postcode to deal with these problems?

Edward Davey: I am always happy to meet hon. Members and I am sure we can arrange that. Ahead of that meeting, however, I want to ensure that the hon. Lady and her constituents who will be accompanying her do not have raised expectations. Royal Mail is struggling with its financial position. We are turning around Royal Mail—it was a disastrous financial case when we had it from Labour—and, as Minister, I would not want to impose extraordinary and disproportionate costs on it. I shall certainly meet the hon. Lady, however.

Chris Bryant: The Labour Government introduced the artists resale right, which has made an enormous difference to many artists in this country. The law requires that it is introduced for the estates of deceased artists from 1 January next year. When I last asked the Secretary of State about it, he said that he
	could not confirm that it was going ahead and he still looks as bemused as he did then even though it is his responsibility, but the Arts Minister has told me that it will go ahead as long as I do not mention it to anybody else. Will the Secretary of State please now inform us exactly what is happening on the artists resale right?

Edward Davey: rose —

Chris Bryant: The Secretary of State.

Vincent Cable: I believe it will go ahead; I have made further inquiries since the hon. Gentleman’s original question.

Martin Vickers: The Secretary of State visited my constituency in July, closely followed by the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Greg Clark), clearly recognising the need to boost the local economy. Since that time, we have had two enterprise zones, regional growth fund successes, a new road scheme and the halving of the Humber bridge tolls. My constituents are asking: what next?

Vincent Cable: I think there is an expression that goes, “post hoc ergo propter hoc”. It is not just a coincidence.

Mr Speaker: I once used that on “Any Questions”. I say to the Secretary of State that it does not work.

Water White Paper

Mary Creagh: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the water White Paper.

Richard Benyon: Making sure that we have enough water for everyone will be one of the major challenges this country will have to deal with in the years ahead. Today’s publication of “Water for Life” recognises that water is essential for economic growth and that we must protect the environment for future generations.
	The White Paper is a blueprint for action. It outlines plans to modernise the rules that govern how we take water from our rivers; it explains how we will improve the condition of our rivers by encouraging local organisations to improve water quality and ensure we are extracting water from our environment in the least harmful way; it announces plans to reform the water industry and deregulate water markets to drive economic growth; it enables business and public sector customers to negotiate better services from suppliers and to cut their costs; it removes barriers that have discouraged new entrants from competing in the water market; it asks water companies to consider where water trading and interconnecting pipelines could help to ensure secure water supplies at a price customers can afford; it enables water companies to introduce new social tariffs for people struggling to pay their bills and seeks to tackle bad debt that ordinary householders have to bear the cost of to the tune of £15 a year; and it tackles the historic unfairness of water infrastructure in the south-west.
	The White Paper is the Government taking leadership on an issue of critical importance to our economy and our environment. It is a bold vision for the management and harnessing of an increasingly scarce but vital resource and I welcome this opportunity to discuss it with hon. Members today.

Mary Creagh: I start by thanking the Secretary of State for her note explaining why the market-sensitive parts of the White Paper were briefed to the stock exchange this morning and expressing my disappointment that she is not giving us her views on this.
	We have just had the driest 12 months since records began 100 years ago. That has affected water quality, restricted boating activity and seen wildfires destroy valuable habitats. Last month, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs granted Anglian Water a drought permit, a highly unusual move for the autumn, when reservoirs are normally filling up. Last Thursday, the Environment Agency’s drought prospect report revealed that south-east England is at high risk of drought next year with some restrictions possible on customer supply. Ensuring a safe, affordable and continuous supply of water while protecting the environment and managing unpredictable rainfall is a major challenge. The White Paper is of intense interest to the public, who are worried about rising bills as real incomes fall and household budgets are squeezed. It builds on Labour’s Cave and Walker reviews, which we commissioned, and takes an evolutionary approach.
	We welcome the proposals to introduce greater competition for business and public sector customers and to establish a cross-border market between England and Scotland for water and sewerage services. We also welcome the fact that water efficiency measures will be part of the green deal, as proposed by my hon. Friends the Members for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) and for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) during the passage of the Energy Act 2011. However, the White Paper is silent on how the water sector will reduce its carbon footprint and encourage energy from waste, and the proposals on the removal of historical abstraction licences, which cause such damage to our environment, are given an end date of 2025, which is far too late.
	Last week’s autumn statement announced £40 million a year to help 700,000 households in the south-west pay their water bills. Will the Minister tell the House when the £2 billion capital investment in the south-west that South West Water invested be paid off and how long the £40 million subsidy will continue for those customers? How will he ensure that those proposals for South West Water meet EU state aid rules? We know that bills in the south-west are, on average, £157 higher than those across the rest of the country, reflecting the botched Tory privatisation of 1989, which left 3% of the population paying for 30% of the country’s coastline and the £2 billion investment in new sewerage services. Does that money set a precedent for other areas of the country to receive help to offset capital investment costs? The cost of the Thames tideway tunnel is now estimated to be over £4 billion, so can Thames Water customers look forward to receiving similar help with their bills?
	More than 2,250,000 pensioners, single adults and families spend more than 5% of their disposable income on water bills. The Government’s proposals to help people with rising bills elsewhere in England and Wales are weak and unclear. How does the Minister propose to force water companies to ensure that those eligible people receive help with their bills when that will come straight off the company’s bottom line? What sanctions will there be for water companies that consistently fail to help people with their bills? Has he decided whether to fund Water Sure through public expenditure, as mentioned in the consultation in June, and, if so, what will the cost be per annum? Has he rejected the idea of match funding for company social tariffs in the south-west and modifying sewerage charges for non-household sectors?
	Today’s water White Paper is more than six months late, and it is a curate’s egg—good in part. We will work with the Government to ensure a fair deal for water customers, whatever part of the country they live in.

Richard Benyon: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the welcome she has given to large elements of the White Paper. She is right that it builds on work that has been done over many years. I am grateful to Professor Cave, Anna Walker and to David Gray for his report on Ofwat, which informed the White Paper, as have the contributions of many stakeholders, other organisations and Members of the House.
	The hon. Lady made a slightly predictable and lame remark about why I am dealing with the issue today, rather than the Secretary of State. We have a style of management in this Government that encourages people to take control of the issues. It is a highly motivational
	style that I recommend to her, because it encourages greater understanding of the issues. The Secretary of State and I have spent many hours preparing the White Paper and have immersed ourselves in the detail.
	The hon. Lady is wrong to suggest that there is not enough in the White Paper on reform of the abstraction system. The abstraction rules go back to the early 1960s and do not take into account changes to our climate and weather patters, and it is important that we have new and clear rules that take us into the future. We will consult in 2013 on our long-term approach to a transitional system of changing abstraction that will work and be sustainable in every sense.
	There are urgent measures that we need to take forward, because in constituencies similar to mine, much-loved and much-valued rivers, which are vital to our eco-systems and to the general health of our environment and to the way in which we value it, are running dry. The White Paper sets out clearly how the Environment Agency will work to bring forward speedily measures that change how we abstract water, so that we return water as quickly as possible to river systems, and our catchment approach, which we announced in March, will soon start to benefit water quality and pollution. I urge the hon. Lady to support that measure, which involves many local people, is effective and tackles the urgent situation that we face, brought about by the current low rainfall and the impending drought, unless we have a proper, wet winter.
	The hon. Lady mentioned South West Water. We believe that the announcement in the Budget, on which the Chancellor gave more detail in the autumn statement, sets out a way of righting a long-term wrong. It is to the credit of this Government that they have tackled it, because Members from all parts of the House have raised the issue for a great many years, and we are dealing with it. I am not going to pretend to her or to the House that the announcement will create the equivalence that people in the south-west might feel they deserve, but it is a considerable contribution and is separate from what we are doing to assist those on low incomes throughout the country to pay their bills.
	We are consulting on the guidelines that we will produce for companies’ social tariffs, and I recommend to the hon. Lady the details in the White Paper on the excellent work that several water companies are doing to make it easier for people to pay their bills, and on the work that the companies are doing with organisations such as Citizens Advice and others.
	The hon. Lady asks how long the payment announced by the Chancellor will continue. In an almost unique announcement, I can tell the House that it will continue beyond the end of the spending review and, in fact, until at least the end of the next spending review. Of course, it will be for Ministers then to decide what happens after that.
	The hon. Lady talks about other high-cost items and their impact on people’s bills, and refers to the Thames tideway tunnel, which, as she rightly recognises, imposes a high cost on Thames Water customers. The cost of the project is of great concern to Ministers and to the Government, and we are looking at it very closely. We remain supportive of the scheme, however, and page 55 of the White Paper shows the Government’s clear support for it. The Thames is one of the most important rivers
	running through an iconic city, and we need to ensure that it is clean. We believe that this scheme offers the best solution.
	The hon. Lady asks me about the guidance on tariffs. Water is a monopoly industry, and the monopoly industries are highly regulated by three regulators, so Ofwat will continue to set prices and to be an independent regulator. We will give clear guidance on where we think it should be going, but the relationship will remain the same and its responsibility will be to keep bills affordable.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Mr Speaker: Order. What are required now are short questions and short answers, because we must move on. That is the way it has to be done.

Tony Baldry: Birmingham has a greater length of canals than Venice, and the country as a whole has an extensive canal network, so what assessment has my hon. Friend made of its potential to link those parts of the country with above-average rainfall with those parts that need more water?

Richard Benyon: I have looked very carefully at that issue, and as my hon. Friend will know we are in the process of a very exciting change in how we manage our waterways, in transferring British Waterways to the charitable sector. There remains the opportunity to use our canals to move water around, but the sad truth is that water is an extremely heavy substance, and it is very carbon-intensive to move it very far. The economic assessments that I have seen state that to move water much more than 30 miles is un-economic, but through a range of different measures we start to see that, with interconnectors, we can incentivise water companies to use a variety of means to move water from neighbouring areas to theirs. Then, we can start moving a trickle of water from areas of high rainfall to areas of low rainfall.

Ben Bradshaw: I welcome the fact that the Government are implementing the part of Anna Walker’s review that will bring relief at last to consumers in the south-west, although I note, of course, that our bills will still be more than £100 more than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Will the Minister say a little more about infrastructure? The thing that puzzles many members of the public is that we live in a wet, temperate climate with lots of rainfall, and yet we constantly talk about having droughts. What more can the Government do to increase the capacity of reservoirs and other infrastructure to avoid that happening?

Richard Benyon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words. Of course, he is right. We want to encourage water companies to continue to invest. A key element of the White Paper is to send a very clear message to the investor community that we value the nearly £100 billion of investment in our infrastructure over the past 22 years and want to see more of it in future. There have been two intentions in that direction: first, not to spook investors by giving the wrong indications about how we want to proceed on competition; and secondly, to say to the investor community, “This is a place of safety and security where you can invest for the long term.” We will still require greater infrastructure and elements of construction that will make our economy and our environment more resilient to the kinds of weather changes that are happening.

Andrew George: Like the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), I welcome the Government’s approach with regard to South West Water customers and to the social tariff proposal. However, does my hon. Friend acknowledge that the ability across companies to respond to the advantage that is given to them as regards social tariffs will vary from company area to company area, and will he keep that under review? After all, this is a White Paper, not a Bill.

Richard Benyon: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We hope to legislate in the near future on a number of these matters, not least that of South West Water, which does require primary legislation. The guidance that we are consulting on will be made available when the results of the consultation are known in January—in the new year, to be precise. We will very much take his concerns into account. We want company social tariff schemes that really work and get to those who are in water poverty.

Caroline Lucas: I welcome the publication of the White Paper, although I am disappointed that in some respects it is not more ambitious, particularly as some of the measures that we need could be very simply achieved. To give one specific example, are there plans to include a mandatory requirement to have rainwater harvesting in all new homes, and if not, why not, given that it is a very simple measure that could nevertheless have a significant impact?

Richard Benyon: There are great incentives to be given in the construction of new homes. In terms of the wider debate on development, sustainable development will put the onus on developers to show that the construction of these dwellings will have as minimal an impact as possible on the environment. This will be a real driver towards using water-conserving measures such as greywater schemes, sustainable drainage systems and a whole host of others that we will be bringing forward as this process goes further.

James Gray: One reason for over-abstraction from rivers such as the source of the Thames and the Malmesbury, the Avon and the Kennet in my constituency is that the law prevents planners from considering water and sewerage availability when agreeing unwanted out-of-town developments and large-scale developments such as those around Swindon. Will the Minister have discussions with his colleagues at the Department for Communities and Local Government to consider whether planning law could be changed to avoid over-abstraction from rivers such as mine?

Richard Benyon: That is a matter of great concern to me. The River Kennet flows through my constituency, and when I stood in it in Marlborough the other day, it was as dry as the carpet on which I am standing. It is a very real problem, and the projections for population growth across this country in the years to come indicate that we have to address it now. We are setting out in the White Paper a vision that will precisely encompass the concerns so accurately voiced by my hon. Friend. We need to ensure that there is an adequate water supply so that our rivers and taps can continue to flow, and we are trying to link up those two very important requirements.

Barry Sheerman: The Minister will be aware that it took David Walliams’s sponsored swim down the Thames to remind our constituents how filthy some of our rivers are. Tens of thousands of tonnes of sewage are still pumped into the Thames. Protection for the quality of our rivers comes from the Environment Agency, but everyone is saying that the Environment Agency is being run down and that it does not have the capacity to be vigilant and ensure that our environment is safe.

Richard Benyon: I have the highest respect for the Environment Agency. The people who work there are true professionals and are absolutely committed. I have had no indication from them that they are unable to deal with water quality issues, as described by the hon. Gentleman. I agree with him that the main river flowing through our capital city is in a disgraceful state. Not only should it be our ambition to see it cleaner, but we have to comply with international treaties. It behoves us to take the tough decision to restore its quality. However, that will not happen with the exclusion of other rivers that are also suffering quality problems.

Stephen Phillips: Lincolnshire, where my constituency sits, is one of the driest counties in the country, somewhat counter-intuitively. Water is therefore of great importance to my constituents and in particular to those who farm. Will the Minister assure the House that there are no proposals in the White Paper that will adversely affect the farming industry?

Richard Benyon: One of the core principles that motivates us in DEFRA is food security. We are deeply indebted to the farming community for the innovation that it has shown and for its ability to cope with changing weather patterns, while continuing to produce quality food. During the drought last year, we engaged with abstractors, many of them from the farming community. We found that the Government have many tools at hand to deal with the problems now. There was some very innovative work by the Environment Agency, the National Farmers Union and other organisations on that. The White Paper addresses the urgent and available methods, but also considers a new, changeable abstraction scheme for the long term that encourages farmers to continue to produce food.

Thomas Docherty: I think that there will be concern at the failure to separate the retail arm of competition for non-domestic customers. May I press the Minister to set out the timetable for the introduction of a zero-threshold market for all non-domestic customers?

Richard Benyon: That is a clear priority. We hope to have a water Bill to take those methods forward. We looked closely at the recommendations of the Cave report and those from a number of other quarters about retail separation. We are making substantial changes on competition, but we were not persuaded of the need for wholesale reorganisation and separation. We want to ensure that the water sector remains open to increased investment. We hope to make changes with a water Bill in the next Session of Parliament.

Roger Williams: I welcome the commitment in the White Paper to tackle water quality on a water catchment area basis. I notice that the Teme, Wye and Severn catchment areas straddle the England-Wales border. I ask the Minister to work closely with Ministers in the Welsh Assembly and other agencies to ensure that water quality is improved as quickly as possible.

Richard Benyon: I have visited that catchment area and know that there are serious issues to be tackled. We work closely not only with ministerial colleagues in Wales, but with the Environment Agency and the new Countryside Council for Wales. I assure my hon. Friend that cross-border issues will be dealt with to reflect the needs of catchments. We will work with all concerned to ensure that that is successful.

Paul Flynn: If the Government are abiding by their promised timetable, 8 December is part of early summer. Is it not true that this White Paper is not only late, but lame and limited? It appears to disregard altogether the immense potential of water resources to generate clean, sustainable energy.

Richard Benyon: I am saddened that the hon. Gentleman is not as welcoming of the White Paper as others have been. We originally planned to introduce it in July and I recognise that it is a few months late. However, I am sure that he would have preferred for us to take a bit longer and get it right rather than rush it. We produced a natural environment White Paper in June, which informed the issues that we are taking forward in this White Paper. We have consulted closely with people across the water sector and in the wider DEFRA family. I think that it was better to take a few months longer and get it right.

Nadhim Zahawi: I welcome the White Paper. Will the Minister confirm that the reason it was released to the City first was that it contains market-sensitive information? There is genuine anxiety in Stratford-on-Avon and throughout the country about over-abstraction. What can he say to my constituents to allay their fears?

Richard Benyon: My hon. Friend is right: we released only the parts of the White Paper that were market sensitive to the stock exchange, after informing Mr Speaker. I gather that there is precedent for such a move and I am grateful for the general support for it. My hon. Friend’s constituents, like mine, are right to be concerned about the impact that over-abstraction is having on their environment. That is why we are making a reasoned change to the abstraction system in the long term and tackling urgently the problems of over-abstraction in certain areas where rivers are dangerously low or even running dry.

Andrew Love: The Minister has confirmed his commitment to the Thames tideway tunnel investment of £4 billion. Will he also confirm the other major investment in the Thames Water area at Deephams in my constituency? How will the Government continue to protect the consumer from the increased bills that will be occasioned by that major investment?

Richard Benyon: Deephams is vital to the infrastructure that we need. The hon. Gentleman is right to suggest that it will have an impact on people’s bills. It is the job of the Government, working with Thames Water and Ofwat, to ensure that that cost is as low as possible. There is a large contingency in the Thames tideway project, which every experience of large-scale environmental projects shows is necessary. I hope that we can work with Thames Water to ensure that these infrastructure projects are produced at as reasonable a cost as possible and with as little impact on charge payers as we can achieve.

George Eustice: I, too, welcome the measures outlined in the White Paper to deal with the affordability of water bills in the south-west. As the Minister said, this issue has been discussed for more than a decade and nothing has been done. It is good to finally see action. In respect of the concerns about whether this sets a precedent for the Thames tideway project, does he agree that a major difference is that the population of the Thames Water area is far greater than that of the South West Water area, so the overall impact of the infrastructure improvements on bills will be far lower?

Richard Benyon: It is no comfort to my constituents or the constituents of other hon. Members in the Thames Water area to say that their bills are likely to go up. However, when they do go up, our projection is that they will be at about the national average. My hon. Friend’s constituents will continue to pay bills of about £100 over the national average. We have made a considerable investment to try to right the wrong that they have lived with for a long time. It is never easy, but I assure him that I will continue to work with Ofwat and others. I am grateful for his contribution and that of other hon. Members from the south-west in this difficult process. I hope that it is appreciated that we are getting somewhere.

Chris Bryant: With all this talk of dryness, I feel as though the Rhondda is living in a different world—perhaps not for the first time—because the issue that affects us most is still flooding, in particular where there is dry ground and water comes straight down off the mountains. One thing that has helped enormously is that Dwr Cymru, Welsh Water, has, with its unique structure, been able to work more co-operatively with the Welsh Assembly and others. Will the Minister ensure that nothing compromises that unique structure?

Richard Benyon: I commend that company. I was with its chairman just the other day discussing this issue. We have to learn how water companies cope with large quantities of water in high rainfall areas, but also how we can work with them to achieve greater connectivity with other water companies. If we see water flowing from area to area, it will benefit the hon. Gentleman’s constituents through the bills that they pay and encourage water to go to the stressed areas of the south-east.

Therese Coffey: The microclimate in Suffolk Coastal is quite similar to that of north Africa, and farmers are used to using irrigation in producing crops. There are also big abstractors of both river and ground water. I welcome large parts of the White Paper, but I am a little worried by recommendations 3.39 and 3.43, which I am concerned will put farmers in my constituency out of food production.

Richard Benyon: I am very happy to discuss the details of that with my hon. Friend and with farmers from her constituency, because that outcome is not our intention. We want farmers’ businesses to be secure for the future. If the Government had not taken responsibility for this issue by taking forward a clear vision of an abstraction regime that is fit for the future—it has been a problem for a long time that there has not been such a coalescing of ideas—farmers in her constituency would have been in a much worse condition.

Stephen Mosley: The Minister has just mentioned Welsh Water. Will he remember that it also serves customers on the English side of the border, for instance in Chester? In areas where there are disputes between DEFRA and the Welsh Assembly Government—for example, on the Consumer Council for Water—will he ensure that customers on the English side of the border are not forgotten?

Richard Benyon: I will of course ensure that they are not forgotten. I am looking forward to going up to the north-west to see the new interconnector, which will provide water from places such as north Wales to an area that was water-stressed last year. We have to recognise that drought is not exclusive to the south and east but is now a feature in other parts of the country, including my hon. Friend’s constituency.

Core Cities

Hilary Benn: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government if he will make a statement on the powers and finance he intends to devolve to local authorities.

Greg Clark: I am grateful for the opportunity to answer.
	I have laid in the Library today a copy of a document that the Government are publishing entitled “Unlocking growth in cities”, and I have laid a written ministerial statement. The document outlines a new framework for the relationship between our larger cities and central Government.
	England’s largest cities—many of the issues in question are devolved matters—are the economic powerhouses of our country. We are offering them a menu of new powers that we want to explore as part of a series of bespoke “city deals”. The ability to do that comes from an amendment that was introduced into the Localism Bill, which was promoted by the core cities group and attracted all-party support. It allowed powers to be devolved to cities in future, and I believe it is important to act on it.
	Our cities have great potential to contribute more to growth, and to enable them to do that we want to free them from Whitehall control in a number of areas, with the aim of stimulating growth. The first wave of deals that we propose will be with the eight largest cities and their surrounding local enterprise partnerships. As with any deal, cities will have to offer something in return for their new powers and funding. They must guarantee that they can provide strong and accountable leadership, improve efficiency and outcomes, and be innovative in their approach.
	The bespoke approach of recognising the differences between cities and allowing licensed exceptions is a new idea to put cities back in charge of their own economic destiny and enable them to seize the opportunities for growth. It represents a big shift in how Whitehall works, with the presumption being that powers should be handed down wherever cities make a convincing case.
	It is important to say that today’s document sets out a series of indicative options for the transfers of control that could be considered as part of each deal-making process. The list is not intended to be a statement of policy or represent an automatic entitlement for cities. It is neither prescriptive nor exhaustive, but it might help the House if I give some examples of the content of the document.
	We want to bring an end to the current system of requiring cities to bid to different Whitehall departments for different pots of cash, whether for roads or housing. Instead, we want to explore whether they can get one consolidated capital pot, to direct as they see fit. We want them to have the ability to set lower business rates for certain types of company. We already have very successful business improvement districts, and sometimes firms in a particular sector across a wider area may benefit from the same degree of flexibility.
	There will be a £1 billion boost to the regional growth fund to create jobs, and we will encourage cities to bid for that money to help clusters of businesses in their
	area, so one bid could help several small companies. We know that many small businesses find the system of taking on apprentices daunting, so cities will be able to set up city apprenticeship hubs, which will help local employers and local people to make the most of the opportunities offered by apprenticeships.
	We want to improve the way in which services work together in cities, to make it easier for people to get back into work instead of being passed from one service to another—from Jobcentre Plus to the town hall to a careers advisor. That can be done under one roof, and we want to make that possible. We also want to offer powers over infrastructure to unlock investments in improving transport, housing and broadband. Currently, transport projects can be delayed because cities have to go through the Whitehall machinery, but they may have the capacity to make some of the decisions themselves. Cities should also be able to have more of a say on their priorities for housing and regeneration, instead of having to go through the Homes and Communities Agency.
	Cities will be able to bid for a share in a £100 million capital investment pot to spend on ambitious broadband infrastructure projects. We expect bids to include a range of projects, including superfast broadband for strategic business areas and city-wide high-speed mobile connectivity.
	As I said, we want to start with the eight core cities that proposed the amendment to the Localism Bill, but I wish to be clear that our vision extends to the whole of urban Britain. I will be open to suggestions from other cities about how they can make use of the powers that the Bill, now the Localism Act 2011, gives them.
	The powers that we are proposing will help to allow our cities to be the economic, social and cultural magnets that they have the potential to be, and places where people aspire to live. Our cities have too often been straining at Whitehall’s leash, and they now have an opportunity to seize the powers that are available to them. I hope that the conversation and negotiations that we will have in the months ahead will be fruitful, and I commend this statement to the House.

Mr Speaker: Yes, I notice that the Minister refers to his “statement” to the House, and his observations did somewhat exceed the time limit allocated to Ministers for dealing with urgent questions—so much so that one wonders whether he might have considered making an oral statement in the first instance.

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply, but it should not have taken an urgent question to bring him to the Dispatch Box this morning. Once again, a major policy announcement affecting local government, this time made in the Deputy Prime Minister’s speech in my constituency this morning, is all over the national and regional media, who were clearly pre-briefed yesterday, whereas the House should have been told first today.
	The efforts of councils and communities up and down the country make the biggest contribution to our cities, and it is the Government’s job to help them do so. At least the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged today that areas once synonymous with urban decay were “dramatically revived” thanks to Labour’s investment. However, when we examine the “unprecedented transfer of power” that he has talked of, in fact we find
	unprecedented cuts, as confirmed in this morning’s local government settlement, on top of the cuts already resulting from the scrapping of regional development agencies. Those cuts are substantial, front-loaded and unfair.
	Will the Minister explain why the 10% most deprived local authorities, which include the core cities of Manchester and Liverpool, are facing reductions in their spending power nearly four times greater than the 10% least deprived authorities? There is only one way to describe that, and it is as balancing the books on the backs of the poor or, when it comes to job losses, on the backs of women, who have lost twice as many jobs in local government as men since the coalition was formed. How many more public sector jobs will be lost in the core cities in view of the revised Office for Budget Responsibility forecast published last week?
	When does the Minister expect the new powers for the core cities to be confirmed? He has assured the House today that they will be available regardless of the outcome of the mayoral referendums, so when does he propose to extend them to other councils?
	On the devolution of local funding, we developed single pot funding, a good idea that is now being taken forward. We welcome that, but will the Minister tell the House by how much the Government have slashed local capital spending in the core cities? Is that not why we now face an “infrastructure deficit”? Those are not my words but those of the Prime Minister.
	How will reducing the affordable housing budget by nearly £4 billion unleash the power of local councils, including the core cities, when it means that they will find it much more difficult to provide the homes that their people need?
	Councils will welcome a role on apprenticeships, although many already play a role, but why are local authorities, including the core cities, excluded from playing a part in the Work programme? Surely they should have a role in helping people to find jobs, which is an urgent task up and down the country.
	On the changes to local government finance announced by the Deputy Prime Minister today, which will affect all councils, will the Minister give the House an assurance that no local authority will lose out financially? Will there be effective redistribution from the most well off to the least well off? How much of the increase in business rate revenue do the Government plan to keep for themselves? How exactly is that localisation?
	On the business rate discounts, to which the Minister referred, who will decide where and to which industry they can be offered, and will he assure us that that will not just result in better-off areas being the ones that can attract new businesses?
	The Opposition support strong and innovative local government, which should have the powers it needs to do that job, but no amount of warm words will hide two very uncomfortable facts: the Government are cutting unfairly and their failed economic policy is undermining the growth of our core cities and all local communities, when what they really need is a change of course.

Greg Clark: I accept your words, Mr Speaker, that, such is the replete quantity of announcements that we are making, I might have made a statement on them.
	However, I am pleased to be able to respond to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn).
	The intention of the proposals is to begin a series of negotiations with cities—we have not made a definitive announcement of powers that will be vested in one city rather than another. I thought it reasonable to publish a document to encourage cities across the country and see what others have suggested.
	The right hon. Gentleman mentioned RDAs, but he will know that local enterprise partnerships in each of the cities are making major contributions to our reform. It is significant that when people were invited to make a proposal on how they should organise themselves economically, local businesses and local authorities proposed core cities as a preferable alternative. I am not aware of any consensus on the retention of RDAs.
	On the local government finance settlement, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, he will know that this is the second year of a settlement announced last year. I can confirm that the figures are exactly the same. The average reduction in spending power is 3.3%, which is less than last year’s reduction, and there is the protection of a maximum reduction of 8.8%.
	In terms of fairness, we have again advantaged the deprivation and needs component of the formula to ensure that it has a greater weight compared with the system that we inherited.
	On jobs, the right hon. Gentleman will know that to rebalance the economy it is important that we have private sector job creation. That is the agenda that the local enterprise partnerships are putting forward, and each of the core cities is clear that that is what is needed. They have a great capacity to create private sector jobs. Our future jobs are likely to come from knowledge-intensive industries, of which cities are ideally placed to be the hosts. In cities, people are in close proximity with one another and can share knowledge and insights. Cities will be the cradles of growth in future, and it is right that private sector job creation should be the key to that. He will also know that the Office for Budget Responsibility independent report on the autumn statement projected an increase in private sector jobs of 1.7 million in the years ahead.
	We will negotiate case by case on what each city would like to be part of the single pot. It is important that we recognise that the needs of Liverpool are perhaps different from those of Bristol or of Leeds.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked who should approve the discounts available in business rates. That is clearly a matter for the local authorities representing the whole of the city area. When there are industry specific arrangements, we would expect a ballot of those industries, as with business improvement districts, which can have a higher levy.
	The proposals we are making today are consonant with the discussions that we have had with each of the core cities during months past. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, having been instrumental in providing this power, will join the leaders of all parties in the cities to ensure that we can give them the tools they need to unlock growth in their areas.

Stewart Jackson: The Minister’s reply to this urgent question shows that this Government are serious about civic renaissance. Will my right hon. Friend make efforts to speak to his colleagues in the Treasury about supporting tax increment financing and residential estate investment trusts, and about the development of more detailed special-purpose vehicles to access private sector capital to drive regeneration, not just in large cities, but in smaller ones such as Peterborough?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One power that we are keen to see devolved to cities is a greater ability to invest in infrastructure, which can unlock growth and lead to financial prosperity. We have consulted on suggestions for tax increment financing and will propose our response shortly, but it is clear that cities want to be in the vanguard of using such powers.

Nick Raynsford: The Minister talked about the devolution of business rates, but he did not respond to the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) asked him on Government plans to retain part of the revenue from them. If the Minister is serious about localism, will he tell the House whether the Government will consider options for devolving all business rate revenue to local government and not allowing a clawback by the Treasury?

Greg Clark: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Government have consulted on precisely that. It is important that there is a strong connection between an authority’s business rate receipts—all authorities; not just cities—and its policy behaviour in respect of businesses. The direction in which we are headed is very clear, but the precise technical details will be made clear in days to come.

Lorely Burt: I welcome today’s announcement, particularly the repatriation of business rates. Real localism means people having their own money to spend how they decide locally. How many savings will be made by reversing Labour’s Whitehall centralisation, under which so much taxpayers’ money was lost in administration costs before it ever got to front-line users?

Greg Clark: There is recognition that whatever the intentions behind the regional agencies, whether RDAs or regional arrangements more generally, they had become instruments—or, as it were, embassies—of Whitehall in the country. Our preferred approach is to devolve powers to cities so that they can revive their reputation of being able to determine their own future and stand proudly in the world as beacons of investment.

Graham Allen: As Chair of the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform, I strongly welcome the principle and philosophy behind today’s announcement and the co-operation with the core cities in moving the proposals forward. All parties should ensure that they are on the right side of the ambition of local government for greater independence. Is the Minister aware that local government in this country is one of the few in any of the western democracies to remain a creature of statute?
	Will he consider pushing localism much further towards genuine independence, as is enjoyed in other western democracies? The Local Government Association is currently looking at that and might well campaign on it in the new year.

Greg Clark: I commend the work of the hon. Gentleman and his Committee. He is right that we want to improve the standing of local government and its ability to be recognised as having—in effect—a constitutional significance that cannot simply be brushed aside. As he will know, our reforms in the Localism Act 2011 move considerably in that direction to establish a general power of competence for local government, so that it no longer exists to do those things that it is told to do by Parliament and central Government. Instead, the default should be the other way around: councils should be able to do things unless they are explicitly prevented from doing them by Parliament. The Act is a huge step in that direction, but I look forward to the report from the hon. Gentleman’s Committee—it will be taken very seriously in the Government.

Julian Smith: This is a great opportunity for northern cities such as Leeds to seize back control from London. Does the Minister agree that Leeds is doing the right thing by attracting inward investment, sovereign wealth funds and other sources of capital, and not relying on money from Whitehall?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the things that was suppressed under the old regional arrangements was the identity of cities internationally, and one of the proposals that we make in the document is that UK Trade & Investment should work even more closely with cities to promote the identity of cities such as Liverpool, which is world renowned and should be given particular prominence in UKTI’s work around the world.

Ben Bradshaw: I was pleased by the Minister’s clear statement that these new powers would not be restricted to the biggest regional cities, but applied—as he said—to all urban areas. But how on earth is that compatible with one of the first decisions that this Government made, which was to take away Exeter’s unitary status?

Greg Clark: I know that there has been an extensive debate, and great opposition in the area, about that issue, but it was settled. Rather than change administrative boundaries, which could bog down this process and waste time, our choice has been to respect existing administrative boundaries and, within that, transfer powers.

Guy Opperman: Will the Minister outline how his core cities plans will impact on business rates and investments to boost the economy of Newcastle and the north-east?

Greg Clark: The connection between business rates and investment should of course be a virtuous circle. It should be possible to invest in major infrastructure projects knowing that they will attract business, so establishing a clear connection between the activities
	and behaviour of the council and the rewards for that. The proposals that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government will make on the reform of business rates, combined with the access to single capital pots, will provide—for the first time—the ability as of right for cities to invest in their infrastructure, attract businesses and reap the rewards of doing so, and so enter that virtuous circle.

Jonathan Ashworth: The Minister has announced some very interesting measures, but I am not entirely sure that they will compensate for the huge cuts our cities face. It is very disappointing that Leicester is still not considered a core city. We are the pre-eminent city in the east midlands, we have a very successful mayor in Sir Peter Soulsby—a former Member of Parliament—and I am sure that the city could benefit from some of the proposals announced today. Will the Minister add Leicester to the list of core cities?

Greg Clark: The hon. Member for Nottingham North (Mr Allen) looked somewhat askance at that, but I think that rivalry between cities is healthy. Cities should have an identity, and verve and competitiveness should be encouraged. As I said to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn), I will not rule out the inclusion of any cities that can make a good case for taking on some of these powers. I would certainly expect Leicester to be pre-eminent among those cities.

Therese Coffey: I grew up in the city of Liverpool and I am sure that fellow Scousers will welcome these proposals, but I now represent a seat in Suffolk, which does not have a city but is bigger than most of the cities that my hon. Friend has mentioned. What is stopping the transfer of these powers to shire counties, and why are they being restricted to cities at present?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend knows that our agenda for decentralisation extends across the country to authorities of all types—indeed, the Localism Act enacts those powers—but it is right to recognise that our cities have particular challenges and opportunities. Just as cities around the world have prospered from having a policy focus, it is right that we should consider the challenges of urban Britain and, by transferring powers to cities and encouraging them to realise their potential, we should help our cities to do what cities in other countries do, which is to match or exceed the national average of prosperity. Too often, our cities are below the national average in income, and we want them to improve their position.

Tony Lloyd: The Manchester region will welcome the direction of travel that the Minister spells out, but does he recognise that the fundamental partnership between the previous Government and my city—and other northern cities—which saw such dramatic changes, was premised on the fact the Government ensured that resources were adequate? Will he guarantee that we will see a proper resource base for our core cities?

Greg Clark: The reforms give more control and more direct ability for authorities to have the resources that they need to invest. One of the features of the system
	that we inherited from several Governments is that too often our great cities, which have an international standing and reputation, have had to look up to Whitehall to plead for assistance when they have the capacity and resilience to invest and reap the rewards themselves. That is the change that we want to secure and these proposals are a step towards that.

Stephen Williams: The Minister has visited Bristol and he will know that the city of Bristol is not the same as Bristol city council. A pot of money will be welcome to help to solve the city’s transport problems, but power over the entire urban area would be more welcome. Will the Minister endorse the case for an integrated transport authority for the county that used to be Avon?

Greg Clark: This is one of the proposals that I expect to come from Bristol. The Government recognise, in this document, that cities include their surrounding area, and indeed that is how local enterprise partnerships defined themselves. One of the criteria for the deals is to ensure that all the connections in the area in and around the city are reflected in what is proposed, so I expect that to be part of the discussion that we will have with the authorities in my hon. Friend’s area.

Gordon Marsden: What the Minister’s paper shows, in what it says about LEPs and skills, is that Ministers are having to reinvent the wheel on what RDAs did. Belatedly, they are giving powers to LEPs, wasting 12 months in the process. Does he accept that, as Members on both sides of the House have said, these powers and opportunities should also be available to second-level towns, coastal towns, rural areas and suburban areas on the edge of cities? Will he also look at the need to combine a skills strategy with localism in those areas—something that his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and across the Government have so far failed to do?

Greg Clark: That is explicitly referred to in the document. We want to give the opportunity for cities to engage in skills strategies and help to equip the next generation of workers to enable businesses to prosper. I have been clear in what I have said: while we are starting with the core cities, this should by no means be seen as an exclusive process and I want to extend these principles beyond that.
	On the point about the ability to do this through LEPs, I think that the identity and strength of cities were submerged under the regional structure that we inherited. Having swept away the regional approach, we are giving life to the potential of these cities, as is being increasingly recognised.

Martin Vickers: I welcome the Minister’s announcement and the continuing devolution of powers to our local authorities. Like the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), I represent a coastal constituency, and my constituents will be concerned that investment will be sucked into our cities to their disadvantage. Will the Minister assure me that other measures will be introduced that will help constituencies such as mine?

Greg Clark: My hon. Friend knows that coastal cities have been a particular focal point for the Government. As a considerable presence in his area, he will want to encourage his authority to make use of some of the powers that are generally available. It is right to recognise the importance of cities and what they can do, but one of the contributions that they can make is to revive the prosperity of areas even outside the city boundaries, and I am sure that that will be the case in and around the Humber.

Nick Smith: May I press the Minister on the point that local authorities should surely be included in the Work programme? They could play a great part in helping people to get jobs.

Greg Clark: The document makes an explicit proposal that local authorities should be able to participate in the Work programme. It is relevant for them to be able to bring local insights to bear, the better to get people from welfare into work.

Robert Halfon: I welcome these moves from Fabian centralisation to local democracy, but will my hon. Friend consider extending these devolved powers to core new towns such as Harlow, especially given that we are now an enterprise zone?

Greg Clark: I am delighted by Members’ requests to extend these powers beyond the cities. It is music to my ears. I would be delighted to have such compelling propositions and requests from cities and new towns and indeed from other parts of Britain. We are starting with the core cities, but we want to go further.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

George Young: The business for the week commencing 12 December will be:
	Monday 12 December—General debate on immigration. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister plans to make a statement on the EU Council.
	Tuesday 13 December—Motion to approve the chairman of the Statistics Board, followed by proceedings on the Charities Bill [Lords], followed by motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to financial restrictions (Iran), followed by Opposition day [un-allotted day] [half-day]. There will be a debate relating to Europe. This debate will arise on a Democratic Unionist party motion.
	Wednesday 14 December—Motions on standing orders relating to ways and means and supply, followed by motions relating to scrutiny of draft orders under the Public Bodies Bill [Lords], followed by Opposition day [un-allotted day] [half-day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
	Thursday 15 December—Motion relating to the recommendations of the Members’ Expenses Committee report on the operation of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, followed by, motion relating to financial education. The subjects for these debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 19 December will include:
	Monday 19 December—General debate on apprenticeships.
	Tuesday 20 December—Pre-recess adjournment debate. The format will be specified by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Colleagues will also wish to be reminded that the House will meet at 11.30 am on 20 December.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 15 December 2011 will be:
	Thursday 15 December—Debate on Remploy.

Angela Eagle: We have all been captivated this week by the images of the arrival of two giant pandas at Edinburgh zoo. Is the Leader of the House alarmed to realise that there are now more giant pandas in Scotland than there are Conservative MPs? Before the Deputy Leader of the House gets too comfortable, let me say that, given his party’s poll ratings in Scotland, it looks like its MPs are going to be joining the endangered species list north of the border as well.
	In 20 years in this place, I have never known business statements to contain so little legislative substance, especially so early in a Parliament. There has been little even resembling Government legislation in this place for weeks now. Will the Leader of the House explain why the Commons is twiddling its thumbs while the Lords teeters under the weight of badly drafted, highly controversial and ill-thought-out legislation? Was this part of the plan? Before he blames the Opposition, the snow or the royal wedding, analysis shows that thousands of Government amendments and endless Liberal Democrat
	speeches are causing the logjam in the Lords. Why is the Government’s legislative programme so out of balance and why can they not manage it better?
	Talking about incompetence, on Tuesday the Government lost their first vote in the House of Commons amid chaotic scenes as panic-stricken Government Whips first dragged their MPs out of the Aye Lobby and then shoved them back in again. By the time the doors were locked, Hansard shows fewer than a quarter of Government MPs were actually in the Lobby with just three Cabinet Ministers for company. I have to say that neither the Leader of the House nor his Deputy were among them. Thankfully for the Leader of the House, neither was the Chief Whip.
	I understand that when this defeat was announced, the cheers from the Carlton Club were even louder than those from Opposition Benches. What an ominous sign for the Prime Minister on his way to Brussels. Whether the Leader of the House likes it or not, this place has expressed a clear view by a majority of 134 that we require more time to debate this Government’s failing economic policy. Will the right hon. Gentleman now honour the clearly expressed wishes of this House, by scheduling further Government time for debate on the economy in the very near future?
	This week, the Deputy Prime Minister vowed to go into the next election with a plan to means-test free bus passes and TV licences for millions of pensioners. Is that what his newly appointed “brand advisers” meant when they told him to act more like Oxfam? Some 9 million pensioners now want us to have a debate on whether this is Government policy? Will the Leader of the House oblige?
	On Tuesday, a former Conservative Member of this House was caught on camera boasting of his access and influence at the heart of Downing street. This follows the still unanswered questions on the Werritty affair. In Opposition, the Prime Minister said that lobbying was the
	“next big scandal waiting to happen.”
	The Minister responsible gave a firm promise to the House that there would be a consultation document on the regulation of the lobbying industry by the end of November. Given that it is now December and next week is the last full parliamentary week before the recess, will the Leader of the House confirm that the promised consultation paper will be published next week?
	Tory divisions on Europe have exploded into the open. The Prime Minister got a Euro-mauling from his own Back Benchers yesterday and the Eurosceptics are out on manoeuvres. Meanwhile, Cabinet Members are openly at war: the Work and Pensions Secretary is reportedly issuing threats over the phone; the Northern Ireland Secretary has taken to the airwaves demanding a referendum and the leader in waiting at City Hall is madly stirring the pot.
	We have a Tory grass-roots rebellion, a Cabinet divided and a Prime Minister isolated. Will the Leader of the House inform us what is different from the last Tory Government that he served in?

George Young: My party plans to overtake the population of pandas before the next election—[Interruption.] At the next election. In view of the fertility of pandas, that may not be a very high hurdle, but we do plan to do better than them.
	As for the House twiddling its thumbs, I think that the hon. Lady demeans the debates that I have announced in the forthcoming week. There is a debate on Europe. What can be more topical than that? There is the Opposition-day debate. Are they going to choose something that is of no consequence? I am amazed that she has repeated the accusation that we heard last week. The fact is we have managed the business in the House of Commons much better than the outgoing Government. We have managed to scrutinise the Government’s legislative programme with adequate time. That programme is now in another place and we will deal with the Lords amendments in due course.
	I am amazed that the hon. Lady raised the issue of the debate and vote on Tuesday. We provided a debate in Government time after the autumn statement. That is something that the previous Labour Government did not always do. We had the pre-Budget report, and we did not always get a debate in Government time. Having provided a debate in Government time, the Labour party then brought it to a premature conclusion by moving that it should stop before we reached 10 o’clock. It then complained that we did not have enough time to debate the motion. A number of Labour MPs who took part in the debate then solemnly went through the Division Lobbies to assert that they had done no such thing; that they had not considered the economy. At a time when we are trying to reconnect the House of Commons with the public, I wonder whether the sort of antics that the Labour party got up to on Tuesday really advanced our cause.
	On benefits for pensioners, if the hon. Lady looks at the coalition agreement, she will see clear commitments on benefits to pensioners on bus passes and other issues and that remains the policy of the coalition Government.
	I am amazed that the hon. Lady chose to raise the subject of lobbying. For 13 years, the Labour Government did nothing about lobbying. They ignored the recommendations of the Public Administration Select Committee, which reported in 2009. By contrast, we are actually doing something about lobbying. We will produce our consultation paper within the next few weeks, proposing a statutory register of lobbyists, which is something that they consistently failed to do. On the question of boasting, I have to say that in the previous Parliament, there were ex-Labour Ministers who were boasting, while they were still Members of Parliament, of the influence that they had on Government.
	Finally, on Europe, I gently remind the hon. Lady that when we had the vote on the referendum, her party was split as were all three parties. On the Government Benches, we are delighted that the person representing this country in Europe today and tomorrow is the Prime Minister and not the Leader of the Opposition.

Anna Soubry: I do not wish to fall out with Labour Members who represent Leicester constituencies but it is a long-standing fact that the queen of the east midlands is Nottingham.
	There was good news today for the city of Nottingham, and that is good news for my constituency, which forms part of Greater Nottingham. Will the Leader of the House be so good as to find time for us to discuss cities and today’s good news for all the core cities?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Having listened to the exchange just now, I know that the announcement and the enfranchisement of local government were welcomed on both sides of the House. I cannot promise an early debate on the cities and I do not want to get drawn into the question of which is the principal city in the east midlands. There will be an opportunity to discuss this matter, however, on Tuesday week, during the pre-recess Adjournment debate, or she might like to apply for a debate in Westminster Hall. Furthermore, there will be the normal debate on the revenue support grant early in the new year.

Natascha Engel: I apologise in advance for not being able to stay for the whole of business questions today.
	I would like to offer the Leader of the House the help of the Backbench Business Committee between now and such time as the Government’s legislation comes back from the House of Lords: we would be only too delighted to take responsibility for scheduling all debates on the Floor of the House between now and then. I hope that he will take us up on that generous offer. I also hope that he does not mind if I take this opportunity to make another public service announcement: hon. Members have until 6 pm on Monday to put in for the pre-recess Adjournment debate ballot.

George Young: We are grateful for the public service announcement. On the hon. Lady’s generous offer to replace me as Leader of the House, I gently point out to her that I have announced six days’ business in the next two weeks, three of which are Opposition days or Backbench Business days. I do not think that she will find a more generous offer in the history of Parliament.

Matthew Offord: Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate on payday loans? It is an area of the financial sector that has not had that much coverage, but yesterday’s report showed that one in six people cannot afford to pay off the principal that they borrow. It seems that this area of the financial sector is acting in a fashion that is little more than loan sharking, particularly given that it preys on the financially vulnerable in our constituencies.

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding the House of the report published yesterday. The Government are concerned about the impact of these high interest rates on the day-to-day life of those on low incomes. He might know that this issue was raised during a debate on 1 December in Westminster Hall. The Government have just commissioned research from Bristol university to find out what the consequences would be of introducing a cap on the interest rates. I hope that that will be available and published in the summer and that it will inform the debate. In the meantime, I urge people to think twice before taking on high-interest loans and to contact the free money advice service, possibly through their citizens advice bureau, or to visit their local credit union, which might be able to help on better terms.

Gerald Kaufman: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen early-day motion 2506, which stands in my name and those of other hon.
	Members, and deals with the antisocial property speculation in my constituency of Mr R. Street of Woodhouses, Manchester, and Associated British Foods, which for eight years have kept derelict a site among which large numbers of my constituents live.
	[That this House expresses its disgust with Mr R. Street of Woodhouses, Manchester, landowner and Associated British Foods PLC, head lessee, whose avarice and lack of concern mean that land at the junction of Wellington Street and Cross Lane, Gorton, Manchester, remains a derelict eyesore, as it has been now for eight years, when community development is urgently required on this site; notes with anger and concern that large numbers of local residents in this heavily populated area have had to put up with this unacceptable situation for so long; calls on these greedy property-speculators to give up the land without delay so that it can be developed for community use; and further calls on the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Manchester City Council to take all possible action to get these anti-social people to behave decently.]
	It is a total disgrace that because of the greed and cupidity of these property speculators my constituents should have to put up with this. Will he refer the matter to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government so that these people can be told that they cannot go on like this anymore?

George Young: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I have now seen early-day motion 2506, and I understand why he and his constituents feel strongly about the site. I note that at the end of the motion he calls on Manchester city council, as well as my right hon. Friend, to take all possible action, and presumably compulsory purchase order powers are available if desired. However, I shall do as he has suggested and bring the matter to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Simon Hart: May we have a debate on the Freedom of Information Act? In my area, public bodies have been asked a range of questions, including on witches, werewolves, wizards, ghosts, vampires, zombies and demons. Even the star signs of local car thieves and the chief constable’s lottery choices have been asked for. It is a waste of time and money, and may we review it?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. The Government announced in January that they would review the FOI legislation. We are about to submit our evidence to the Justice Committee as part of the post-legislative scrutiny, and that scrutiny will touch on the issues that he has just mentioned—the costs imposed on those who have to respond to these requests. I hope very much that the Committee, once it has received our review of the FOI Act, can take the matter forward. Of course, we will be interested in any recommendations that it might make on changes to the legislation.

Gloria De Piero: May we have a debate in Government time on the national lottery provider, Camelot, with a view to securing a constituency breakdown of where tickets are purchased, not just where lottery money is spent?

George Young: I understand that there will be an opportunity to ask that question of Ministers in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on 15 December. I also understand that the hon. Lady represents her party on the Front Bench so she is well placed to ask that question. I shall convey the question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and see whether we can get the information—I am pretty sure that it has been asked for before—on the relationship between the areas that buy the tickets and those that get the lottery investment. I shall do what I can to secure that information.

Philip Davies: May we have a debate on penalties for swearing at police officers? The excellent new Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, has said that people should be properly punished for swearing at police officers, whereas the rather ridiculous Mr Justice Bean has recently quashed the conviction against somebody who swore at a police officer, saying that it was the kind of thing that they should expect. Given the widespread concern about the lack of respect in society, surely people should not be able to swear at police officers without punishment. A debate in the House could decide the will of the House.

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. Having been on the police parliamentary scheme, which I am sure that many other hon. Members have been on, I understand the frustration that policemen experience when they are subject to abuse. My recollection is that it is not an offence, as such, to swear at a policeman, but that if, after someone has been warned, they carry on, they are liable to be arrested. However, I am not a lawyer and I shall get an authoritative response from the Lord Chancellor, which will be conveyed to my hon. Friend.

Anne McGuire: A couple of days ago, the renewables obligation banding review impact assessment was published by the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Unfortunately, in spite of meetings with officials and at ministerial level, the impact assessment has failed to address some of the issues relating to the wood and forestry industry in the United Kingdom, not least the impact on 150,000 jobs across some of the most rural parts of the UK. Given that the Leader of the House has so much time to be generous with, will he allow a debate in Government time on this important industry?

George Young: I understand the right hon. Lady’s concern, and I understand that the issue was raised—although perhaps not in precisely the form in which she expressed it—at DECC questions recently. I will share her concern with my right hon. Friend the Energy Secretary and see whether we can get a response on the impact assessment.

Andrew Selous: Many Government Members are passionate about the NHS, so may we please have a general debate on it, particularly given the recent problems at the Care Quality Commission and the variability in certain orthopaedic services?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The Government would welcome a debate on the NHS, during which we could explain the reforms that we are
	introducing to improve it and the extra resources that we are investing. I cannot promise a debate, but at some point the Health and Social Care Bill, which is in another place, will return to this place, and then there might be an opportunity for the sort of exchange to which he refers.

Diana Johnson: Given that the Government are in disarray over their legislative programme, do we not have an opportunity to have some pre-legislative scrutiny so that we do not end up in the position we found ourselves in with the Health and Social Care Bill, when it had to be paused?

George Young: I do not know if the hon. Lady remembers the previous Parliament, but in contrast to it the legislative programme in this Parliament is a model of order. She made a serious point about more legislation being introduced in draft. We will do that. I think that we plan to introduce nine draft Bills this Session, which is double the number at the beginning of the previous Session. It is the objective of the coalition Government to have more pre-legislative scrutiny and more Bills introduced in draft. We think that that leads to a better scrutiny process in the House of Commons.

Robert Halfon: May we have a debate on the rights of children to proper and equal access to their grandparents? In a few moments, I and a number of other MPs will join the Grandparents Association—a charity based in Harlow—to take a petition to No. 10 Downing street calling for children to be given that right in law?

George Young: I applaud the work of the Grandparents Association to achieve positive outcomes for grandchildren, and I hope that my hon. Friend will get a positive response to the petition that he is about to present. In the context of what the coalition Government are doing to strengthen the family, we of course want to see what more we can do to strengthen the rights of grandparents, particularly where there is family breakdown.

Cathy Jamieson: I wonder whether the Leader of the House is aware of the growing concerns about the potential implications of changes to tax credits for couples who work only 16 hours in the week. Last week’s Westminster Hall debate on the issue was well attended, and it was clear that many more Members wished to speak than could do so in the time available. Will the Leader of the House therefore consider allocating some time during Government business to consider the issue and allow the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to give fuller responses than she was able to give in that debate?

George Young: I understand the hon. Lady’s concern. She will know that the Welfare Reform Bill is in another place. It may be appropriate to raise such issues when the Bill returns to this House. However, I would point out that by next April the child tax credit will have risen by £390, so against a difficult background we have tried to help the sorts of families to whom she has referred.

Tessa Munt: The Leader of the House will have noticed that the number of questions submitted by MPs to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Secretary of State for Transport has risen to about the equivalent of those submitted to the main Departments, which give an hour’s worth of responses from Ministers, rather than three quarters of an hour. I wonder whether the Leader of the House will consider raising the time to an hour, to ensure that the farmers and everyone with transport problems in my constituency, including young people, will have a chance to hear some answers.

George Young: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I wonder whether she has been able to identify which Department might have less time, in order to accommodate the extra time for the Departments that she mentions.

Nick Smith: Excel, a new car park operator in my constituency, has gridlocked my office with complaints. Shoppers, local traders and taxi drivers think that they have been unfairly hit by hefty penalty charges. We should consider a licensing system and an independent appeals service to improve car parking management. May we have a debate on driving up standards for car parking operators?

George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I think that legislation banning the clamping of cars on private property has gone through the House and will come into effect next year. I hope that that is a step in the direction that he wants, but I will raise his broader concerns with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport.

Chris Heaton-Harris: A total of 17 babies die every day in Great Britain, with 11 stillborn and the others dying within four weeks of birth. SANDS, the campaigning charity in this area, is currently holding an exhibition at the Oxo gallery to highlight the care available for parents who suffer this tragedy. I had a Westminster Hall debate on stillbirth about six months ago, and I have been trying hard to get a debate, in Westminster Hall or otherwise, on the certification of a stillbirth, which is a Home Office matter. May we have some Government time to discuss the issue?

George Young: The Government are anxious to improve the perinatal mortality rates to which my hon. Friend has referred. I hope that the investment in midwives will help to bring that figure down. I will pursue his specific question about statistics with the Home Office, if that is the right Department, and see what can be done on that front. As he will have heard, there will also be an opportunity to debate the matter further in the pre-recess Christmas Adjournment debate.

Valerie Vaz: May we have an urgent statement about why the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) is privately telling the Care Quality Commission to press ahead with the takeover of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, while publicly saying that he is still consulting and considering options? Surely that is unreasonable, in a judicial review sense, and bad government.

George Young: It might be unreasonable if it were true. I would like to make some inquiries, but I assume that what my right hon. Friend says in public is what is the case.

Guto Bebb: Many local authorities in Wales have accepted demands from trade unions not to dock the pay of striking workers until January or February. May we have a statement to ascertain the Government’s position on using taxpayers’ funds to provide unions with a “strike now, pay later” option?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. So far as the Government are concerned, we have had no approach from the civil service trade unions to do what he describes, and we are not aware of a general approach from the public sector trade unions. However, I very much agree with what he has said, and if we were approached, we would say that it is not appropriate to pay people for work that they have not done at this or any other time of year.

Jim Sheridan: May we have a debate on the double whammy that the music industry is imposing on small and medium-sized enterprises? Currently, both Phonographic Performance Ltd and the Performing Right Society are demanding significant amounts of money from small and medium-sized enterprises simply for playing the radio on premises that are accessible to the public. Will the Leader of the House raise the matter with the appropriate Minister, so that we can have some clarity about what powers such organisations have to demand such amounts from small and medium-sized enterprises?

George Young: The Government are sympathetic. We want to deregulate, and the regime that the hon. Gentleman has described is the one that we inherited. There will be Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions in a week’s time, but if this is a Department for Business, Innovation and Skills issue—which it may well be—I will raise it with my right hon. Friend the Business Secretary. The hon. Gentleman might like to be here in a week, and I will ensure that whichever Minister answers his question is well primed.

Karen Bradley: Leek further education college in my constituency has been providing excellent skills-based training to young people for over 100 years. It is now in negotiations to become part of the university of Derby, so that, for the first time ever, both further and higher education will be available to young people in Staffordshire Moorlands. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on how we can help all young people with educational aspiration, including those in Leek?

George Young: I welcome that initiative, which is to have on one campus the two institutions to which my hon. Friend has referred. We are trying to reform vocational education to ensure that there are high-quality alternatives to academic subjects, such as the ones that she has mentioned, and to remove all the perverse incentives to push pupils into lower-level qualifications that might not improve their employment prospects. I am delighted to hear of the initiative to which she has referred.

Paul Flynn: A total of 179 gallant British soldiers died in Iraq as a result of a decision of this House that was based on a deception. Some 383 died in Helmand as a result of a decision that was based on the hope that not a shot would be fired. When can we debate early-day motion 2515, in order to discuss the dreadful threat of a potential war in Iran actually happening?
	[That this House is alarmed that the UK is stumbling towards a war in Iran that would have dreadful, unforeseeable consequences; recalls that in the past the momentum of preparations for war has frequently led to major wars; and urges the Government to seek to reduce tension, pursue conflict resolution and cease war preparations.]
	The current war of words might become a war of weapons.

George Young: I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about those who lost their lives in conflict. We had a debate in Government time relatively recently on a range of countries that included Iran—I am not sure whether he was able to take part in that debate—so I cannot promise another early debate on the middle east and related areas. As I said earlier in response to another question, he may want to put in for the pre-Christmas recess Adjournment debate or apply for a debate in Westminster Hall.

Harriett Baldwin: May we have a debate in Government time about the state pension? In addition to the record cash increase announced this week, which I know pensioners have welcomed, the Government are proposing two other alternatives in their White Paper for reform of the state pension age, as the state pension is the foundation of the retirement income of 100% of our constituents.

George Young: I would welcome such a debate. In the debate on Tuesday, a number of my hon. Friends drew the House’s attention to the generous pension increase next spring and reminded the House of the triple guarantee that we have introduced. My hon. Friend also trails the next development in pension policy, which I think will be warmly welcomed by pensioners in this country. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is taking that policy forward.

Jonathan Ashworth: I could never fall out with the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), even if she will not accept that Leicester is the superior city. May I ask the Leader of the House about the scheduling of economic debates? He knows, of course, that the Government lost a vote. When we have a Budget, we have four or five days of debate immediately afterwards, as well as on the day of the statement. May we have a similar arrangement for autumn statements, so that we have debate on the day and perhaps for the following one or two days?

George Young: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has had time to read the recommendations of the Wright committee, but we have done exactly what it recommended—namely, to provide in Government time a debate after the autumn statement. I drew to the attention of the shadow Leader of the House the fact
	that that was not a practice that had been adopted by a previous Government when we had a debate on the pre-Budget report only in response to a Standing Order request from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), nowthe Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Glyn Davies: Yesterday an important report on atrial fibrillation was published. AF is a condition that, through lack of awareness, leads to a huge number of deaths and disability as a result of the much increased risk of strokes. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we have an opportunity to raise awareness of atrial fibrillation by having a debate on the Floor of the House?

George Young: The Government are anxious to improve the diagnosis, detection and treatment of atrial fibrillation. Some work is going on at the moment to identify those at risk so that they can be helped at an earlier stage. We work closely with the Atrial Fibrillation Association and the Stroke Association on this issue. I will draw to the attention of the Secretary of State for Health my hon. Friend’s interest in this subject.

Christopher Pincher: Despite improvements, many 11-year-olds in Tamworth go into secondary school with a reading age of eight, which severely limits their learning opportunities. May we have a debate on innovations in education, particularly on vertical integration between primary and secondary schools, which is being examined in Tamworth and can help to identify the problems and encourage the aspirations of many young people?

George Young: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says, and I assume his local education authority would be the appropriate body to approach about merging those two types of schools. I hope that my hon. Friend will take comfort from what we are doing with the academies programme, driving up standards and putting parents and teachers in power, and what we are doing with free schools, which I hope will improve the education of those children to whom he referred, who are leaving school without the qualifications they need.

Alun Cairns: The Government are investing heavily in improving broadband capacity, which can bring about some great innovations such as home working and flexible working that can enhance the work-life balance. May we have a debate on such issues to encourage as many private sector employers as possible, following on from Government initiatives, to enhance the work-life balance?

George Young: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The roll-out of broadband is a priority for this Government, and I know that BT is doing a lot of work in this area. I will share with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the particular point that my hon. Friend has made and ask him to write to him.

Julian Smith: Local and regional newspapers are gutted that they cannot get accreditation for the Olympics. May we have a debate about how we open up the vast media centre at the Olympic site to newspapers from across our country?

George Young: I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. There will be an opportunity to raise that issue at Culture, Media and Sport questions in a week’s time, and I will forewarn my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that my hon. Friend is on the warpath on this issue.

Martin Vickers: Just as religious fundamentalism can be damaging to social cohesion, so can anti-religious fundamentalism as exhibited by the National Secular Society in its attempt to stop prayers before council meetings. Will the Leader of the House find time for a Government statement to ensure that councils remain free to have prayers where they so wish?

George Young: I strongly believe in local democracy, and I think that the decision to which my hon. Friend refers—on how to conduct council meetings and whether there should be a prayer before them—is very much one that should be taken by local councils. I hope that they will follow the example of this House, which has a short moment of prayer before we re-engage in normal hostilities.

Opposition Day

[Un-allotted Half Day]
	 — 
	Public Sector Pensions

Mr Speaker: I inform the House that I have not selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Hywel Williams: I beg to move,
	That this House recognises and appreciates the valuable work done by public sector workers; believes that they should receive pensions which are affordable, sustainable and fair; further believes that the changes announced since June 2010 by the Government are primarily for the purposes of deficit reduction rather than a move to secure the long-term sustainability of public sector pensions; notes that these changes are unfair on public sector workers who will have to work longer, pay more and receive less in their pension when they retire; further notes the findings of the National Audit Office that the 2007-08 pensions re-negotiation changes will generate estimated savings of 14 per cent. by 2059-60 and the conclusions of the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts’ Thirty-eighth Report of this Session on the Impact of the 2007-08 changes to public sector pensions (HC 833), that the cost of public service pensions has reduced substantially because of these changes; agrees with criticism in both reports of the failure to develop a long-term strategy for the role of pensions in recruitment and retention to the public sector; condemns the Government’s threat to cut devolved administrations’ budgets if they do not implement the Government’s immediate levy on pensions contributions; and calls on the Government to reverse its unfair changes to public sector pensions.
	The motion stands in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends from the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, and of Members from the Labour party and, I understand, from the Social Democratic and Labour party.
	Last week, a day of action saw more than 2 million people across the UK join in protests against changes that will make those affected—mainly women—work longer, pay more and receive less when they retire. This year alone, bankers walked away with £7 billion in bonuses. As one constituent said to me last week:
	“This is just a way of getting extra cash from public workers. And it is just not fair.”
	We are proud to hold this debate on behalf of all those people across the UK who are directly or indirectly affected by the Government’s changes, and we note that despite having 36 Opposition day debates since the changes were announced in June 2010, the official Opposition have not seen fit to devote even one of those opportunities to debate the public sector pensions proposals. Whatever the evasions, the nods and the winks, and the ducking and diving of others, we are glad of the opportunity to show clearly where we stand.

David Mundell: This is characterised as a joint debate between Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party, yet last week we saw SNP Members of the Scottish Parliament cross the picket lines to ensure that the Scottish Parliament functioned, while Plaid Cymru Members of the Welsh Assembly refused to cross picket lines and the Welsh Assembly did not function. Where is the coherent position in that?

Hywel Williams: It has clearly escaped the right hon. Gentleman’s attention that the SNP are in government in Scotland, while in Wales—alas—we are not.

David Mundell: I am afraid that I do not find that a tenable explanation. All SNP Members of the Scottish Parliament are not in the Government, although they may act like it. Those people crossed the picket lines and spoke in a debate on this very subject.

Hywel Williams: Honestly, I think we need to move on to the subject of the debate. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will have time later to make those and other fatuous points.

Alun Cairns: I would like to take the hon. Gentleman back to what he said a few moments ago and remind him that when Plaid Cymru was part of the coalition in the Welsh Assembly Government, its members refused to cross the picket lines at that time, too.

Hywel Williams: Well, honestly, I am sure that you would not want me to be diverted down this particular route, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Dawn Primarolo: Much as this topic might interest some Members, I think the hon. Gentleman should return to the subject of this afternoon’s debate.

Hywel Williams: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	To summarise our motion, we appreciate the valuable work done by public sector workers and believe that they should receive pensions that are affordable, sustainable and fair. I think that we can have agreement across the House on that. We believe that the Government’s changes are primarily for the purposes of deficit reduction—I do not think we are going to have agreement on that—rather than to secure the long-term sustainability of public sector pensions. These changes are, to our minds, unfair on public sector workers.
	We also note that the findings of the National Audit Office for the 2007-08 period show that pensions re-negotiated at that time will generate estimated savings of 14% by 2059-60. The conclusions of the 38th report of the Public Accounts Committee reveal that the cost of public service pensions has reduced substantially because of those changes. We agree with the criticism in both reports of the failure to develop a long-term strategy for the role of pensions in recruitment and retention in the public sector, and we condemn the Government’s threat to cut the devolved Administrations’ budgets if they do not implement the Government’s immediate levy.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am following my hon. Friend’s argument closely and I agree entirely with what he says. Does he agree that there is a link between this drive to the bottom on public sector pay and the Chancellor’s view that we should be looking at regional pay? This flexibility is all about a drive to the bottom, and it is unacceptable out there; people will not have it.

Hywel Williams: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, to which I shall return later. The Prime Minister’s numerous assurances that he is not in favour of driving down public sector pensions, and that it is not a race to the bottom as far as he is concerned, are strange in view of the actions of his Government.
	Finally, our motion calls explicitly on the Government
	“to reverse its unfair changes to public sector pensions.”
	Let me make clear from the outset that no one to whom I have spoken wanted to go on strike. Everyone wants a reasonable settlement. My nationalist party colleagues and I hope that the talks between the unions and the Government will continue, and will reach a successful conclusion in the terms that I have outlined. We understand that the unions have accepted the continued need for negotiation and further change. Perhaps the Minister who winds up the debate will tell us when the two sides met most recently in the last month, who was involved—there have been questions about who was speaking for whom—and when they intend to meet again.

Julian Smith: As the hon. Gentleman develops his argument, will he be comparing the positions of employees in the public sector with those in the private sector, who for many years have been having to increase their contributions in order to receive decent pensions?

Hywel Williams: Government Members have deployed such arguments time and again, which is strange given that in other contexts, such as that of education, they always deny that they are lowering standards. It is not about levelling down, they say, but about levelling up—yet when it suits them, it is the other way around. The hon. Gentleman clearly was not listening when I made that point earlier.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) has advanced a spurious argument. There are some very good private sector schemes and some very good public sector schemes. Some private sector schemes have gone bust, and some public sector schemes require an in-year top-up. This is not about “private good, public bad”, or the other way around. It is about having good schemes, full stop. It is about fairness, and about not levelling down in either the private or the public sector.

Hywel Williams: The hon. Gentleman has made a good point. If Government Members are concerned about the private sector, they should be concerned about the large number of people who have no pensions at all. That is what concerns me, and concerns my colleagues.

Michael Weir: Certain members of the Government are suggesting, as one of their “public against private” arguments, that public sector schemes are gold-plated. In fact, the average public sector pension is about £5,000 a year, and local government pensions can be as low as £3,000 a year, or £80 a week.

Hywel Williams: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated a point that I was going to make, which will doubtless be made again by other nationalist party members.
	Anyone reading the popular press would imagine that public sector workers were driving around in this year’s model of car and enjoying two or three foreign holidays a year, but that is not, of course, the case.
	We say “Let us have negotiations”, but is the 3.2% imposition itself negotiable? What the Government have announced today will merely shift the burden from one group of workers to another. They are trying to squeeze out some sort of deal, but we utterly reject that way of going about things.

David Mundell: I think it important for the hon. Gentleman to clarify whom he means by “we”. The Scottish National party is in government in Scotland, and a number of choices are available to it. For instance, there are funds that it could allocate to reduce pension contributions, but it has chosen not to do so.

Hywel Williams: Again, I do not want to go down that particular avenue—[Interruption.] I have some things to say that the Minister might like to listen to. My hon. Friends will be responding to his point later, but let me say now that the possibilitiesto which he alludes constitute a broad spectrum of theoretical options for consideration, and that the Scottish Government have expressed no preference. I am sure that others will say more about that later.

Stewart Hosie: The Minister said that a number of choices were available to the Scottish Government. As he will know, the choices are rather limited by the UK Government’s threat to withdraw £8 million a month— £100 million a year—from the Scottish budget if we do not stick to their timetable. I am sure he agrees that that rather limits the choice of manoeuvre for a Government who do not want to go down that path.

Hywel Williams: I am sure that the £100 million cut that the UK Government are dangling before them is proving very persuasive for the Scottish Government, given the difficult position that they are in. I am sure that more will be said later about that as well.

Alan Reid: Because of the council tax freeze in England, the Barnett consequentials provided an extra £66 million for the Scottish Government, and they received hundreds of millions extra as a result of the autumn statement. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the Scottish Government can choose whether or not to use that money to prevent an increase in pension contributions?

Hywel Williams: The hon. Gentleman is a keen student of Scottish affairs, and possibly of Welsh affairs as well. He will know that the block grant has been falling, and that the choices available are limited.

Brian H Donohoe: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the Labour-run Scottish Executive also had to make choices? When they undertook to introduce free travel for the elderly, they had to do so on the basis of the block grant, and the SNP would have to take a similar hit if they did what the motion suggests.

Stewart Hosie: The budget was going up at that time.

Hywel Williams: As my Scottish colleague says, the budget was going up then.

Michael Weir: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what was said by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) was completely wrong? The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has specifically said that if the Scottish Government do not implement the UK Government’s proposals, their budget will be cut. Barnett consequentials emanating from elsewhere are irrelevant, and besides, the Liberals in Scotland have already called for the money to be spent on numerous things.

Hywel Williams: The hon. Gentleman has put it much better than I could have done. It is not surprising that the Liberals are, as usual, trying to spend other people’s money.

Alan Reid: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hywel Williams: No, I must try to make some progress. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to speak later.
	Whatever the Government say, the 3.2% is seen by workers and by the general population as an additional and carefully targeted tax, aimed largely at those who have the least means to pay. As for the negotiations, they must be based on proper evidence rather than on the cases that the Prime Minister quoted selectively during last week’s Question Time, which were so effectively debunked in Radio 4’s “'More or Less” programme and in Channel 4’s “FactCheck”.

Jonathan Edwards: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent speech that he is making. Is he aware of a study by the Fire Brigades Union, which found that 27% of its members were likely, or very likely, to leave their pension schemes if employee contributions were raised? What effect does he think that would have on the sustainability of schemes if it were translated across the public sector?

Hywel Williams: There is clearly a danger that some schemes will become unviable, which would mean that in the longer term those who no longer had pension schemes would become even more dependent on the state. I am sure that Government Members would not want that to happen.

Guto Bebb: I am sure I heard the hon. Gentleman say that the 3% increase in pension contributions would target those least able to pay. I believe that the average public sector wage in Wales is about £26,400, compared with £21,700 in the private sector. Furthermore, do not the Government’s proposals protect those earning less than £15,000 a year?

Hywel Williams: That argument fails to take several factors into account, such as the 710,000 people who will lose their jobs and the 1% pay freeze that looms before us at a time when inflation is eating into the real value of wages.
	Our constituents have gone on strike with the greatest reluctance. They are not the wild-eyed extremists so beloved of those on the Government Benches. Members of the National Association of Head Teachers—scarcely
	a hotbed of left-wing insurrection—went on strike last week for the first time in 140 years. Anna Brychan, director of the NAHT in Wales, summarised the arguments advanced by many public service workers who felt that they had no choice but to go on strike. I shall paraphrase what she said, because it was very lengthy. She said that the NAHT was not persuaded by the unsustainable and unaffordable argument. The pension changes in 2007-08, according to the figures from the National Audit Office, showed savings of 14%, but no re-evaluation has been made since the previous apparently permanent settlement. May I draw the attention of the House to my early-day motion 2198, which makes that point?

Guto Bebb: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hywel Williams: I must press on, as I have rather a lot to say. Time is pressing on, and it is a short debate. Of course, the hon. Gentleman can make his own speech, unless he has to leave the Chamber, but I give way.

Guto Bebb: Was not the individual whom the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned—Anna Brychan—once a member of Plaid Cymru who worked for the party in Cardiff?

Hywel Williams: So did the hon. Gentleman, before he jumped. I know him very well. He is a very nice man and is trying hard to be a nasty curmudgeon, but he is failing entirely.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Does that not prove the general point that there is more rejoicing in heaven over one sinner who repenteth than over the 99 who remain unrepentant?

Hywel Williams: It depends on whether they are going up or down.
	Returning to the comments made by the NAHT, I refer to the written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) on 21 November. In his response, the Minister of State, Department for Education, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb), said:
	“The latest valuation of the teachers’ pension scheme was published in November 2006. This was the actuarial review of the scheme as at 31 March 2004.”—[Official Report, 21 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 87W.]
	In other words, there has been no formal published valuation since the 2007 changes were introduced, so how can the Government claim that the scheme is unaffordable?
	The NAHT also says that contribution increases are all about plugging the deficit, not about making pensions affordable. Teachers are already doing their bit: they have a pay freeze, and below-inflation pay increases to look forward to. In respect of the higher pension age, they recognise the implications of the population living longer, as we all do. That must be debated, but we need to be sensible. Teaching, the NAHT says, is physically and emotionally demanding, and expecting people to do it at 68 is “an ask too far”. That is also the view of other unions that I have consulted. Shane Price, my local Fire Brigades Union representative, asked me:
	“Would you want, or expect, to be carried out, coughing and spluttering from a blazing building by a 68 year old fireman?”
	Clearly not. In any event, says the NAHT, the changes will distort the age profile of the profession. There is a need to ensure a throughput of young people, and that will be jeopardised. Younger teachers will be affected most by the proposed pension scheme, and they may opt out altogether, as we have discussed.
	The NAHT says that this is an attack on education. It wants to attract the brightest and the best—that is what pupils deserve—and while the salaries are not great given the demands of the job, the professional rewards are enormous. We cannot afford for people to discount those professional rewards because their conditions of service are dramatically reduced. These are serious, responsible points. They are made, it is true, by people who are looking after their own interest, but uppermost in their mind is the future of our children, the future of education and of the teaching profession in general.

Jim Sheridan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way—he has been extremely generous in accepting interventions. Having read the motion, I agree with almost all of it, particularly the part in which he identifies who is responsible for the attack on public sector pension schemes. May I therefore assume that he will continue his criticism of the enemy within—the coalition Government—and not be tempted to criticise anyone else?

Hywel Williams: The bulk of my speech, as one would expect, is about the Government’s proposals, but the hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see.
	Lleu Williams from University and College Union Wales told me:
	“We are pleased that MPs will debate public sector pensions a week after tens of thousands of people in Wales took industrial action to show how angry they are…The action last week, alongside the debate on public sector pensions, is testament to the strength of feeling on these issues”
	in Wales. He continued:
	“We hope today’s debate sends a clear message from the people of Wales to Westminster that we will not go quietly into the night over these proposed changes.”
	I have heard from the other side that union members did not support the strike—they have deserted the cause, as it were. UCU general secretary, Sally Hunt, confirms that it saw record recruitment levels both before and after the strike. That gives the lie to that one. Finally, the National Union of Teachers welcomes today’s debate and says that rather than creating an unnecessary and damaging divide between the public and private sectors, Ministers would do well to focus their attention on securing fair pensions for all if future Governments are to avoid pensioner poverty on an unaffordable scale, which is the point that I made earlier regarding future dependence on state benefits.
	I shall refer briefly to that bunch of hard, crazed revolutionaries, the British Medical Association, which strongly opposes the plans set out by the Government to reform the NHS pension scheme, including increased contributions from doctors; raising the standard pensionable age for staff; and devaluing many pension settlements. It queries whether the NHS pension scheme is in need of reform, given that it underwent a major overhaul only three years ago. It says that the scheme is in very
	good financial health, and generates a surplus for the Treasury. Indeed, over the seven years from 2009-10 to 2014-15, the NHS pension scheme is expected to provide a surplus of £10.7 billion for the Treasury.
	The BMA is engaged with the Governments in Westminster and in the devolved nations on the proposed reforms to pensions, but it has not ruled out balloting members on industrial action over the matter. It is thinking of moving towards action, and its decision will be informed by a ballot at the beginning of the year. That is just a sample of the views and arguments that we have heard—there are plenty more.
	One of my constituents, a small business person—such people are often cited by the Government as those who would suffer as a result of the strike—said to me on the day of the strike:
	“They”—
	the Government here in London—
	“think that people like me don’t support the strike. They’re wrong. A lot of my business comes from county council workers. How will I keep going if they don’t have the money to spend?”
	That shows the interaction and co-dependence of the public and private sectors in areas such as mine.

Alun Cairns: If that argument is to be sustained, is it not logical that the way to resolve the economic problem is simply to make the public sector as big as possible, and the private sector can then profit?

Hywel Williams: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman arguing for that. I thought he took the contrary view, but perhaps my sense of irony is underdeveloped.
	The Office for Budget Responsibility estimated in March 2011 that 400,000 people in the public sector would lose their jobs. In its response to the autumn statement, that rose by nearly 80% to a disastrous 710,000. One further, crucial reason as to why we in Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party have called this debate is that public sector jobs are disproportionately important to countries and regions outside London and the south-east. Paying an extra 3% out of their wages is bad for individuals wherever they live, and I have particular sympathy for those in inner-city areas with high costs such as public service workers in central London. Looking across the UK, the 3% imposition and the job losses will have a particularly strong impact on Scotland, Wales and the north of England, especially as the private sector is generally weaker in those areas.
	That will be even more the case if the Government follow Labour’s lead in 2008 and introduce regional rates of pay, as my hon. Friends have said. The figures on the size of the public sector are clear, sad and revealing. Briefly, in Scotland the public sector accounts for 28.6% of jobs; in the east the figure is 23.7%; in the north-east it is 29.4%; in the south- east it is 22.8%; in Wales, unfortunately the figure is highest at 31.2%; and in London it is 22%. There is a clear north-south divide. The people we represent will be hit particularly hard, as will our local economies because of the grotesquely distorted, south-east-weighted economic development of the UK and the obsession with the City of London.
	This morning I received an e-mail from Mr Mark Rowe, a PCS member from the Devon area. I do not know Mr Rowe; I have never met him, and I do not know what his politics are, but he said this in his e-mail:
	“Dear Mr Williams, Thank you for supporting hard working public servants in their struggle over pensions. It is good to know that someone is. We had a huge rally through Torquay on the 30th, hardly a ‘damp squib’”—
	as it was described by the Government. He added that there had been “much public support” and asked why Labour are not “fighting our corner”. Public sector pensions have not been the subject of a single full Opposition day debate in the House for the past 18 months, despite the fact that Labour has had 36 Opposition day debates since the public sector pension changes were first introduced in 2010.

Pete Wishart: Is the situation not worse than that? Not only has Labour never bothered debating this subject in the House of Commons despite having had so many opportunities to do so, but the Leader of the Opposition described these strikes as wrong.

Hywel Williams: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I will be grateful if the hon. Gentleman returns to the topic of his motion, which is the Government’s plans on pensions.

Hywel Williams: I will obey your injunction, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	As I have said, I have had a great deal of correspondence with the unions, and I have given their point of view, which concurs with ours. We are happy to fight the workers’ corner in this dispute. We are happy to press for a proper pensions settlement, which is why we will press our motion to a Division.

David Mundell: The weather in Scotland today is very stormy, and our thoughts are with those who are having to endure the consequences of that. I do not know whether this debate will be equally stormy.

Sheila Gilmore: I hope the Minister will not think just about the people enduring travel disruptions, but will realise that the majority of those who will be working hard to resolve any problems that arise will be public sector workers.

David Mundell: I do realise that—and that may be the only point on which I agree with the hon. Lady.
	I thank the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) for opening the debate. He spoke for about 20 minutes, and in that time he at least said exactly the same about Scottish National party policy on this issue as was revealed in a two-and-a-half-hour debate in the Scottish Parliament last week, which was precisely nothing. I will return to that subject.
	As the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) has already mentioned, no Member would disagree with the following sentiments in the motion:
	“That this House recognises and appreciates the valuable work done by public sector workers”
	and
	“believes that they should receive pensions which are affordable, sustainable and fair”.
	Indeed, those sentiments form the foundations of our reform of public service pensions. Our objective is to put in place new schemes that are affordable, sustainable and fair both to taxpayers and public service workers. Let us be clear: public service pension reform is needed. The costs have increased by a third in the last 10 years, to £32 billion, and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that, without reform, spending on pensions will rise by almost £7 billion over the next five years.
	Understandably, this is a contentious issue, but fairness remains the cornerstone of our approach. We believe that public service workers deserve a good pension in retirement, as a fair reward for a lifetime spent serving the public. We recognise the vital contributions made by teachers, nurses, council employees and civil servants to the well-being of our society now and in the future.
	That is why in June 2010 my right hon. Friend the Chancellor commissioned Lord Hutton, a Work and Pensions Secretary in the previous Government, to take an unbiased and clear-headed look at public service pensions and make proposals for reform. His landmark report has set the parameters of the debate, and it has been rightly lauded for its depth and vision.
	Lord Hutton set out an overwhelming case for reform. He said that
	“the status quo is not tenable”,
	that
	“future costs are inherently uncertain”,
	and that at present the public
	“cannot be sure that schemes will remain sustainable in the future.”
	In his interim report, he found that there was a clear justification, based on the past cost increases borne by the taxpayer, to increase contributions in the short term to ensure a fairer distribution of costs between taxpayers and members. We accepted that recommendation, and increases in member contributions will take place, starting next year. However, next year’s increase merely reflects the increase already planned by the previous Government. We remain committed to securing in full the overall savings of £2.3 billion in 2013-14 and £2.8 billion in 2014-15 that we announced at the 2010 spending review.
	In his final report, Lord Hutton produced a blueprint for a new landscape of public service pensions. It is based on retaining defined-benefit schemes but moving to a fairer career-average basis, and increasing the retirement age in line with the state pension age to protect the taxpayer against future increases in life expectancy.

Jim McGovern: Presumably the Minister is talking about UK public sector pension schemes, whereas the motion seems to be specifically about devolved pension schemes. Does he agree that if there is a solution, it will be that the separatists in Edinburgh just say, “We won’t apply any changes”? Does he also agree that their excuse of continually saying, “The big bad boy in London did it” and then running away is wearing thin?

David Mundell: On that point, I can agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Scottish Government have considerable flexibility to make their own choices, but they have chosen not to do so.

Michael Weir: Will the Minister confirm that the Chief Secretary specifically said that if the Scottish Government do not accept these changes, he will fine them £8 million per month, which amounts to £100 million a year and half a billion pounds over the spending period? How are the Scottish Government supposed, effectively, to pay for this twice, and thereby pay £1 billion?

David Mundell: What I can make clear to the House is that as a result of last week’s autumn statement the Scottish Government will receive approximately £69 million extra in resource departmental expenditure limit funds, that as a result of the Budget they received an extra £112 million, and that between the Budget and the autumn statement they received an extra £90 million, which they had not budgeted for.

Michael Weir: However, will the Minister please explain what difference that makes, as we are still going to lose half a billion pounds over this spending period? There is still going to be a massive cut if the Scottish Government do not follow what this Government are imposing upon them.

David Mundell: The difference it makes is that the SNP will have the option to back up its words with deeds, but instead it fails to do so. Its argument is entirely based on blaming the Westminster Government. It has funds available to make these choices, yet it prefers to deceive public service workers in Scotland by suggesting that everything is entirely at the behest of the Westminster Government.

Michael Weir: Will the Minister therefore go to the Chief Secretary and say, “Take away this threat and allow the Scottish Government to do what they want to do for Scottish public sector workers”? Is the Minister happy that there will be this cut of half a billion pounds over the spending period?

David Mundell: I know the hon. Gentleman does not want Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom—that is his policy—but he and his Government have the ability to make this choice, as the hon. Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern) set out, yet they have chosen not to do so.

Katy Clark: We should look at what the SNP has actually done in this respect. It has responsibility for the Scottish Public Pensions Agency, whose submissions to the Hutton review were far worse than what the coalition Government propose.

David Mundell: I will not presume that the hon. Lady was complimenting the Government, but she is correct in that all four of the suggestions the Scottish Government made to the Hutton inquiry would certainly leave Scottish public sector workers no better off than under the UK Government proposals, and a number of those suggestions would leave them distinctly worse off.

Pete Wishart: As an Under-Secretary, the Minister surely recognises the difference between a Government agency and a Government spokesperson.

David Mundell: I recognise the full ambit of the First Minister’s many responsibilities and I do not believe that such a submission would have been made without consultation with the Scottish Government.

Ian Murray: I think we are getting to the crux of some of the issues. I would never agree with what the coalition Government are doing to public sector pensions in Scotland, but the Scottish National party did put in a report to the Hutton review that was far more draconian than what the Government are proposing. The SNP may be trying to say to the House that this was done by an agency, but why did the Scottish Government not contribute a proposal to the review?

David Mundell: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. It reinforces what all of us who are aware of day-to-day Scottish politics know, which is that the SNP Government in Scotland speak with one word but their deeds are quite different.
	I return to what I was discussing before the interventions. The Government accepted Lord Hutton’s recommendations in full and can reassure the House that the reformed public—

Cathy Jamieson: The Minister has made much of Hutton’s report and fairness, but does he not agree it seems odd that the Government jumped the gun by announcing the 3% increase before Hutton’s final report? How does that demonstrate fairness?

David Mundell: I know that the hon. Lady was not in the House at the time, but the 3% figure is broadly equivalent to the sum that her Government had identified in the pre-Budget report in 2009.

Sandra Osborne: rose—

David Mundell: I will give way in a moment, but I want to make some progress.
	The Government continue to engage actively with the trade unions to agree what the new pension schemes will look like. Discussions began in February and the Government remain fully committed to meaningful engagement. Scheme-level discussions are continuing with the trade unions, with meetings yesterday, today and tomorrow, which deals with a question asked by the hon. Member for Arfon. Significant progress has been achieved and the trade unions have welcomed many of the commitments that we made at the start of this process, including the one that public sector schemes will remain defined-benefit schemes, with a guaranteed amount provided in retirement. That, of course, was one of the options not put forward by the Scottish Public Pensions Agency.

Several hon. Members: rose —

David Mundell: I am going to take an intervention from the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne) once I have completed this section of my speech.
	The unions also welcomed the commitment that all accrued rights will be protected. Everything that public servants have earned until the point of change they will keep, and it will be paid out in the terms expected, at the retirement age expected. Final salary means just that: that someone’s accrued rights will be based on their final salary, not at the point of change but whenever their career ends or they choose to leave the scheme. No public service worker need worry about the entitlements they have already built up.

Sandra Osborne: The Minister talks about public sector reform, so why is the 3% rise going straight to the Treasury? That has nothing to do with the sustainability of public sector pensions.

David Mundell: As the hon. Lady knows, the Treasury underwrites the scheme. The Treasury requires to be paid out whatever is required to be paid out in relation to the scheme. The scheme does not operate on a basis of contributions and pay-outs, because the Treasury is underwriting the scheme so that everybody is paid in full as is their entitlement.

Brian H Donohoe: rose—

Hywel Williams: rose—

David Mundell: May I just make a little progress and then give way again? I think I have been generous with my time.
	Our reforms are not retrospective, nor do they seek to correct the past failure of the Labour party; they are driven by the need for fair, affordable and sustainable pensions in the future. We have reached agreement with the unions on the importance of transparency, equality impacts, participation rates and opt-outs, scheme governance and high-level principles to inform consultations on scheme-level pensions.

Susan Elan Jones: rose—

David Mundell: I will give way in a moment.
	We have set out our proposals. When we make our reforms, the taxpayer needs to be properly protected from the future risks arising from increases in life expectancy by the link between the scheme normal pension age and the state pension age. On 2 November, after months of negotiations with the trade unions, the Government set out a revised offer that was more generous by 8%.
	The offer is generous. Most staff on low and middle incomes will retire on a pension that is as good as what they expect today, and for many it will be better. Lord Hutton has said that it is difficult “to imagine” a more generous offer. The offer includes generous transitional arrangements for those closest to retirement; those closest to retirement should not have to face any change at all. This approach mirrors the steps taken in relation to increases in the state pension age, and it is fair that the same applies here. Anyone 10 years or less from retirement age on 1 April 2012 can be assured that there will be no detriment to their retirement income. However, this enhanced offer is conditional upon reaching agreement. It is an offer that can inform the scheme-by-scheme talks which will continue until the end of the year. Of
	course, if agreement cannot be reached, the Government may be required to revisit our proposals and consider whether those enhancements remain appropriate.

Hywel Williams: Some time ago, the Minister referred to a meeting held yesterday, but will he clarify who was involved? Was a Minister involved in the discussions?

David Mundell: My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury have made it clear that the meetings are ongoing on a regular basis in respect of the specific schemes. I am sure that I will be able to give the hon. Gentleman the information he requires.
	Our objective remains to agree reforms of the main schemes—those for teachers, health and the NHS, the civil service and firefighters—by the end of the year, and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary will update the House in due course. The Government’s preferred scheme would produce better pensions for those on low and middle incomes who have devoted a lifetime to public service. At the same time, public service pensions will remain considerably better than those available in the private sector, as my hon. Friends have suggested. A primary school teacher earning £32,000 per year could receive a pension of £20,000 under our proposals. To earn the equivalent pension in the private sector, an employee would have to pay more than one third of their salary.

Bob Stewart: Several of my constituents who work in the private sector have told me that they totally agree that public sector workers should get sustainable, affordable and fair pensions, but they are concerned that for them to have a similar pension they would have to increase their contributions by a factor of three or four. They do not think that that is fair in the current circumstances.

David Mundell: My hon. Friend makes a good point and I empathise with it as the MP for a constituency that has some of the lowest private sector wages in the UK.
	Only 10% of private sector workers have access to the type of scheme that I was describing, which is at a guaranteed level and is inflation proofed, while only one third of private sector employees currently get any contributions from their employers.

Jonathan Edwards: I come back to the issue of the divide-and-rule strategy of playing the public sector off against the private sector. Is the Minister aware that the average pension of a retiring teacher is £9,000 per annum, and that the figures for NHS workers, for civil servants and for members of the armed forces are £7,000 per annum, £6,000 per annum and £7,500 per annum respectively? Do those figures seem unfair to him?

David Mundell: It is a question not of playing the public sector off against the private sector but of setting out a fair scheme for public sector workers, and that is what this Government are seeking to do.
	The report mentions two reports, one by the National Audit Office and the other by the Public Accounts Committee, which do not provide us with sustainable and lasting models for the future. Pensions, as they stand, are not affordable. As Lord Hutton says,
	“the status quo is not tenable.”
	The Office for Budget Responsibility’s latest forecast demonstrates that long-term costs have continued to increase since March, so reform is now essential because the costs of public service pensions have risen dramatically over the past few decades. The fact is that we are all living longer; the average 60-year-old is living 10 years longer than was the case in the 1970s.

David Davies: I thank my hon. Friend for the points he is making. Does he agree that unless these reforms go ahead public sector workers will not be able to rely on anything, because there might not be any money to pay them anything? That is why it is so important that these reforms go ahead.

David Mundell: I absolutely agree. The speech from the hon. Member for Arfon seemed to me, particularly on Wales, to be very much an argument for the status quo.

Katy Clark: We already know that public sector pensions are, on average, less than £5,600 a year, so if they are going to be even lower what will people live on—state benefits?

David Mundell: There is no suggestion that those on the lowest pay will receive lower state pensions. The Labour party has been very keen to engage in such scaremongering, but the Government’s proposals specifically protect those on the lowest earnings of below £15,000.
	Before I finish, I want to turn to some of the specifics about Scotland.

Eilidh Whiteford: rose —

David Mundell: Perhaps the hon. Lady will agree with me on them.

Eilidh Whiteford: I hope that when the Minister comes to explain the protection for low-paid workers he will be able to clarify something about which many people in trade unions have been asking. Will part-time workers’ earnings and the increase in their contributions be calculated on the basis of full-time equivalent wages?

David Mundell: They will be based on full-time equivalent wages. That point is clear. The difference on pensions between this Government and the Scottish Government is that we are clear on the points that people might not want to hear rather than pretending to people that they can have everything when that is not sustainable.

Eilidh Whiteford: The contributions of a woman who works part-time in a professional job—for example, as a nurse or a teacher—but takes home less than £15,000 a year will be increased not at the lower rate but at the higher rate of a full-time equivalent.

David Mundell: The hon. Lady knows that in all aspects of employment, the full-time equivalent applies. That is what will apply to pensions.

Alan Reid: Will my hon. Friend confirm that that decision in relation to a nurse in Scotland is entirely one for the Scottish Government to take?

David Mundell: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point and I am about to come on to some of the issues about the Scottish Government. The point that has been underlined several times in this debate is that there are many issues on which the Scottish Government could make a decision but have chosen not to do so.

Susan Elan Jones: Will the Minister give way?

David Mundell: I am sure it is not about Scotland, but I will.

Susan Elan Jones: I am sure it could be. The Minister refers to transparency and clarity but yet again refuses to answer the question about ministerial involvement, or lack of it, in negotiations. Why will he use those words yet refuse to do that?

David Mundell: My understanding is that my colleague the Secretary of State for Health is meeting NHS unions as this debate is going on. There are significant ministerial discussions.
	We have set out that the budgets of the devolved Administrations, who have these powers, would not be adjusted accordingly if they chose not to implement the reforms, because they have received higher settlements that reflect the proposed changes. If the devolved Administrations do not implement our public sector pensions reforms, Barnett consequentials will be reduced.
	The Treasury wrote to tell the Scottish Government they had to apply the 3.2% increase in contributions or make up the shortfall and presented them with a choice. They could have chosen not to apply the increased contributions and make up the difference to the Treasury, but they followed a now familiar pattern: they failed to take any sort of decision and blamed Westminster at every turn. Their manufactured outrage is a smokescreen designed to cover the fact that they have no answers for the people of Scotland on how they would fund public sector pensions, never mind the wider state pension. We have asked them often enough—

Michael Weir: rose—

David Mundell: And perhaps the hon. Gentleman will answer us.

Michael Weir: The Minister is talking absolute nonsense. Will he not accept that if the Scottish Government did that, they would lose £1 billion from a budget that is already being cut by making the payment then losing money through a clawback from the Treasury?

David Mundell: I have already set out all the additional money that the Scottish Government have received since the budget settlement last year from which they could have made these choices. Sometimes, choices are
	difficult, but the Scottish Government prefer to pretend to people that they are on their side while not being willing to take difficult decisions.

Ian Murray: You are talking about choices that the SNP Scottish Government will make and one of the big choices they made was to cut capital spending far faster and far further than your own Government.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the Minister and should refer to him as the Minister or “he”. “You” means the occupant of the Chair, and this is nothing to do with me, fortunately.

David Mundell: That is a phrase often used in Scotland, Madam Deputy Speaker, by one of the—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I say to the Minister that I am absolutely aware of the use of “you”, but I think that in parliamentary debates we should stick to the convention here, as I am sure he agrees.

David Mundell: I will indeed do that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The SNP Scottish Government have played fast and loose with Scotland on pensions. Rather than making responsible suggestions, they resort to scare tactics. In this motion, the SNP and Plaid Cymru are frightening people by saying that they will receive less pension. The SNP’s submission to Lord Hutton, as we have heard, offered at best no better and in some cases a much worse deal. The Scottish Public Pensions Agency, an agency of the Scottish Government, headed by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Sustainable Growth, John Swinney, made a number of interesting suggestions when it illustrated options for further change. It suggested reducing current employer contribution cap levels with members meeting all costs above that cap. Alongside that, it proposed to reduce the levels of benefits available without necessarily reducing the levels of contributions.

Pete Wishart: I am listening very carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I suppose it should not come as a surprise to anybody in this House that there are now more giant pandas in Scotland than there are Tory MPs; listening to the Minister, we can see why. Will the Minister concede that there was no submission from the Scottish Government to the Hutton report, but there was a submission from an agency of the Scottish Government?

David Mundell: I do not accept that analysis. The hon. Gentleman might have got a laugh if he had thought that up himself rather than stealing it from the Twittersphere.
	The Scottish Government’s proposals were a toxic cocktail topped up by suggestions to introduce later retirement ages, change accrual rates, apply changes to all members, not just new scheme members, and move to a defined contribution scheme, which places the risk of uncertainty over the value of the final pension on the member. All those proposals would mean a worse deal for public service employees than the coalition’s proposals.

David Mowat: Will the Minister give way?

David Mundell: One last time.

David Mowat: I am listening very carefully to the Minister’s comments on the interaction between the Scottish Government and himself. Does he agree that one of the interesting features of the motion is the last part, which appears to concede the point that the Barnett consequentials should be reviewed and that certain types of expenditure should be taken out of them? If that is a principle that the SNP wishes to adopt, we should consider the Barnett formula more generally and the whole settlement and block grant for Scotland.

David Mundell: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, because that is one issue on which there is an absolute divide between Plaid Cymru and the SNP. Plaid Cymru wants significant change to the Barnett formula and, as I understand it, the SNP does not. That is part of the inherent illogicality that is at the heart of their argument.
	I am surprised that we hear nothing these days about independence, which is relevant. Perhaps that is because Plaid Cymru does not promote independence. I look forward to hearing SNP Members set out exactly how an independent Scotland would be able to fund not only existing pensions, but provide enhanced pensions, without consequences for pensioners in Scotland. I am sure that we will hear calls for the break up of the United Kingdom.
	I also look forward to hearing from Labour Members. I understand that Labour MSPs chose not to take part in the debate in the Scottish Parliament because they were working in their constituencies that day. I know that the Labour party has not been an effective Opposition in Holyrood, particularly since the hon. Member for Glasgow East (Margaret Curran) left, but not to turn up at all is taking that to an extreme. I look forward to hearing their contributions today.

William Bain: I apologise to the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) for missing the first few moments of his opening remarks. Let me begin by paying tribute to the contribution made by those who work in our public services, including 595,000 in Scotland, such as those who care for the sick and elderly in hospitals and care homes, those who provide inspiration to children through the gift of teaching and those who clean up our communities. They are the backbone of our society. They had no part in causing the great recession or the slump in tax revenues and demand in 2008-09. They deserve better treatment from the Government, whose economic policy is based on a further 310,000 of them being made redundant by the end of this Parliament, and their families suffering an uncertain future, and all because of the Chancellor’s adherence to a deflationary economic theory that is not working and is sapping hope and potential from communities across our country.

Graham Stuart: I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s sentiments towards public sector workers and the excellent work they do, but they were a part of unsustainable Government spending, even in years of boom revenues. Does he accept that they deserve an apology for the role that he
	and his party played in giving us unsustainable public funding, which has now led to hard decisions having to be made by the Government?

William Bain: The current Chancellor agreed with every penny piece of spending from 2005 to 2008. He decided to change course on public spending only when the recession was beginning to hit. We can see from the economic illiteracy of the previous Budget and the autumn statement that to have adopted a deflationary policy at that time would have seen unemployment and public sector redundancies soar even higher. That is not the approach that would have safeguarded a recovery, and it is one that we were right to reject.

Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William Bain: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
	Today’s concessions by the Secretary of State for Health on NHS pension contributions show that the Government’s plans are already unravelling under the weight of their own contradictions and injustices. Is it not disgraceful that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury did not come to the House today to make a statement on the details of this partial climbdown, instead of the Government briefing the press?
	By first sight, the concessions stand up to no more scrutiny than the Government’s previous partial climbdown, which would have required a near 50% increase in annual contributions from affected workers, for up to eight years longer, with the claimed increased pensions paid for as much as eight years fewer, losing real terms value each year due to uprating in line with the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index. Unison has already said in response to today’s announcements that a one-year delay before low-paid workers will pay higher contributions is cold comfort.
	This is the Government who refuse to impose a tax on bank bonuses, but believe that nurses, teachers and catering staff should face additional tax rises instead. This is the Government who in the autumn statement sought to slash £1.2 billion a year from the tax credits of these same workers, hurting women and children four times more heavily than the balance sheets of the banks. We need a negotiated solution in which both sides give ground. The Opposition accept many of Lord Hutton’s points, but the Government pre-empted this with the hike in contributions, which must be subject to negotiations.
	Let me set out the reasons why we find the Government’s current proposals unacceptable and urge them to produce plans for the future of public sector pensions that genuinely do not penalise those who are least able to shoulder the burden. First, the Chancellor’s proposals are not about fairness or long-term stability. They are motivated by a reckless plan of spending reductions that are made worse by his failure to grow the economy in the last year and the slump in growth that the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts for this year, next year and the year after. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury set out in the comprehensive spending review last October cuts in the public sector pension bill from next April of more than £1 billion, rising to £2.8 billion by 2014-15, coming from the 3.2% hike in contributions paid by 750,000 public sector workers, all as part of the
	Government’s plan to take £81 billion out of the economy by 2015 through public spending cuts. However, with the lack of demand and growth the biggest problem facing the country today, how will reducing the living standards of hundreds of thousands of public sector workers on top of the two-year pay freeze increase consumer confidence or strengthen the retail and service sectors, which will be harmed by this tax on public sector workers?

David Davies: How much will this plan B that the hon. Gentleman is outlining add to the national debt, and what will be the increase in interest payments each year as a result of the money he wants us to borrow from the banks that he despises?

William Bain: The hon. Gentleman has once again revealed that the Government simply have a plan for cuts and no plan for growth or jobs. A five-point plan for growth and jobs would cut VAT, reduce national insurance and create jobs, which would help pay down the debt and the deficit.

Gordon Banks: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is all about priorities and that the Conservative party has the wrong priorities and we have the right ones?

William Bain: My hon. Friend, who has been involved in setting up and running a business, knows what is needed for job creation in these difficult times.

Mel Stride: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William Bain: I want to make some progress and will give way again in a moment.
	The Government are attempting to create the politics of division between low-paid workers in the private and public sectors and to engage in a race to the bottom on public sector pensions instead of focusing on increasing provision among employees in the private sector, but the public will not be fooled. Cutting a dinner lady’s pension will do nothing to increase the pension of a call centre worker or end unfairness in private pension provision. Two in three private sector workers are not in a workplace pension scheme. Two in three public sector staff earning between £100 and £200 a week are in a pension scheme, but only one in seven private sector workers in the same wage band are in a pension. Only 11% of private sector employees are in defined benefit pension schemes. The Government simply fail to grasp or take action on the unfairness in the pension packages of top directors in the private sector, who have pensions worth nearly £4 million on average.

Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William Bain: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later, because I want to make more progress with my argument.
	The average public sector pension in local government is £3,000 a year, and half of female public sector pensioners receive less than £4,000 a year, or £80 a week. As Lord Hutton’s report makes clear, the notion that current
	public sector pensions are gold-plated is entirely wrong. The Government’s plans mean that a part-time 45-year-old school dinner lady with five years’ service, who is in the local government pension scheme and on a salary of £8,000 per year, would receive £400 a year less in her pension by the age of 65, or £672 a year less if she took it at 68, while she would pay £5,500 more in contributions by her retirement.
	In April, the Government altered the indexation of public sector pensions from the retail prices index measure of inflation to the consumer prices index measure. The TUC estimates that the change has reduced the average value of public sector pensions by 15%, and the OBR has assessed the reduction to be 8.7% by 2017.

Eilidh Whiteford: If the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the switch from RPI to CPI, why did he not vote against it on 17 February?

William Bain: Sadly, this Government will have had another three Budgets and, perhaps, another three autumn statements by the next general election, so we will make our spending plans clear at that general election—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] We will, and those plans will not involve the massive cuts in capital spending that have put construction workers on the dole in Scotland—which the Scottish National party has made over the past two years.

Alan Reid: The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) asked a straightforward question. If the hon. Gentleman is now criticising the RPI-CPI switch, why did he not vote against it in February?

William Bain: I accept that Liberal Democrat Members might be prisoners of a coalition agreement that they have signed up to for five years, but the hon. Gentleman has to explain to the Scottish people why the Chief Secretary to the Treasury now proposes further austerity, with £23 billion more in cuts in the first two years of the next Parliament, and to explain its effect on the lives of the Scottish people. The switch is a permanent change that will still hurt ordinary families even after the public finances have been restored to stability. The Government’s proposals harm those who are within 10 years of retirement and would have to pay the 3.2% increase in contributions for a pension that would be 15% smaller due to the Government’s changes to contributions and indexation.
	The Government’s plans are a further attack on the living standards of women, as 90% of those affected are women, and they add to the effect of the Chancellor’s other cuts in spending, which hurt women twice as hard as men.

Mel Stride: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William Bain: I will in a second. I just want to make further progress on this point. I will allow the hon. Gentleman in.
	The Government’s plans measure income with reference not to gross pay, but to full-time equivalent earnings, treating a part-time employee on a salary of £14,000 a year as if they were a full-time employee on a salary of £28,000 a year. The Office for National Statistics’ own figures from last year show that 806,000 public sector workers who work part-time earn less than £15,000 but
	have full-time equivalent earnings above that amount. Of that number, 91% are women. Only 16% of public sector workers have full-time equivalent earnings of less than £15,000 a year and would escape the rise in contributions. The 3% hike in contributions means that some women would pay almost 50% more in pension contributions.
	Secondly, the OBR’s fiscal sustainability report, published this July, makes it clear that, even without implementing the recommendations in the Hutton report but taking into account the likely rise in the elderly population, the cost of providing public sector pensions as a proportion of GDP will fall from 2% to 1.8% by 2030, and to 1.6% by 2060. Lord Hutton has not disagreed that, even without those changes, the costs of providing public sector pensions in the long term are sustainable.
	The previous Government signed an agreement with civil service unions, ensuring that new civil servants entered a career-average scheme with a pension age of 65 years old, thereby benefiting low-paid workers whose pay rises are generally less than inflation and who are unlikely to benefit from regular promotions. The agreement helped in particular women, black and ethnic minority workers and people with disabilities. The National Audit Office, in December 2010, evaluated that 2007 deal and concluded that it
	“reduces costs to taxpayers by 14 per cent”,
	saving £67 billion over the lifetime of existing schemes.
	Thirdly, a 3.2% increase in contributions by public sector workers in return for a lower pension would fail the test of fairness at a time when people on low and middle incomes face the biggest squeeze in living standards since the 1920s. For a public sector worker on average pay, the effect of this further attack on living standards is to the tune of a £3,000 cut in gross pay. A worker on a salary of £18,000 per year could lose more than £1,500 over the years from next April.
	Fourthly, average incomes are set to fall by 7.4% by the end of this Parliament—the largest slump on record, and all because of this Government’s economic failure; and disposable incomes are set to fall by 4%, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies in data published last Wednesday. Imposing a higher tax on public sector workers at such a time, with those trends in falling disposable income, is grossly inequitable. The hike in pension contributions, together with the current pay freeze and the future 1% pay cap, will lead to an average 16% cut in living standards by 2014 for public sector workers.

Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman share with the House his party’s views? I know that he is putting off an awful lot until near the next general election, but, given his level of criticism, will he explain why he did not vote against the RPI-CPI change, as he has singularly failed to do, and whether he thinks that the system of public sector pensions which this Government inherited was entirely fit for purpose and in need of no reform whatever?

William Bain: The responsibility for the hike in pension contributions, and for the loss in pensions that public sector workers are going to suffer, is the responsibility of this Government, and I will not be deflected from ensuring that they take full account of it.
	The Scottish National party should also—

David Mowat: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

William Bain: I have been generous enough in giving way. With respect, I encourage the hon. Gentleman to catch Madam Deputy Speaker’s eye if he wants to make further points.
	The Scottish National party should thoroughly disown the proposals submitted by the Scottish Public Pensions Agency, which is accountable to Scottish Ministers, as its recommendations would be even more unfair for tens of thousands of Scottish public sector workers. The Scottish Government have power over the NHS, teachers, local government, police and firefighters pension schemes, with the exception of the local government pension scheme. They have not yet declared what they intend do in relation to local government workers, who face the possibility of paying additional contributions to their pensions, so they should end that uncertainty and make their position clear now.
	The Government need to change course, to sustain and not destroy the living standards of public sector workers and to recognise that the crushing austerity that they seek to entrench for years to come will leave a legacy of higher child and family poverty. This country deserves better than a Government who are out of touch, out of growth and out of ideas for the future.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dawn Primarolo: Order. A large number of Members wish to take part in this time-restricted debate. I am going to impose a time limit from the next speaker of seven minutes, because I have now been informed of how long the winding-up speeches will take. I cannot take account of how many interventions there will be, however, so the time limit may have to be reviewed downwards in order to get everybody in at a later stage.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I had hoped, when I saw the text of the motion, that there would be some maturity in this debate about public pensions, which have become unaffordable and unsustainable in the long term, but I should have known better. The speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) was disappointingly partisan and failed to address the long-term sustainability problems that we face.
	It is a truism that every Member of this House appreciates the valuable work done by our public sector workers, and it is not very helpful for any Opposition Member to try to paint Government Members as anti-public sector. I speak as someone who spent almost the entirety of my career working in the public sector, having worked for the police service, in local government, and as a regulator. Among my hon. Friends, we have NHS doctors, ex-servicemen and ex-teachers, so we have as much interest in supporting our public sector workers as any party in this House. However, we also recognise the need for long-term fiscal responsibility and acknowledge that in delivering to public sector
	workers pensions that are affordable, sustainable and fair, that fairness has to apply to those workers and to the taxpayer. As currently constituted, our pensions are not affordable in the long term, for the simple reason that we are all living longer.
	The motion suggests—the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) referred to this—that these public sector pension reforms are about deficit reduction. Given the time frame in which the Government are implementing the changes and the intention to implement them on a phased basis, I am satisfied that that criticism does not bear examination. These changes are about fiscal responsibility and about not saddling future generations of taxpayers with huge tax liabilities. This is not a short-term fix; it is about getting an appropriate balance between the contributions of workers and the contribution of the taxpayer.
	The motion notes that the changes
	“are unfair on public sector workers”
	because they
	“will have to work longer, pay more and receive less in their pension when they retire”.
	I have to say to the House that that is the reality for all pension holders. In my last job, I paid into a private pension, and I have just had a look at how much it is worth. In the space of just two months, the value of that pension pot has eroded by some 25%. I suspect that many workers are having to revise their intentions with regard to retirement when they look at how their pension is performing, not least because of the annual raid on pension funds perpetrated by the previous Government.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend’s point about support for public sector workers is absolutely correct. The fundamental question is about fairness. Opposition Members are saying that people on lower earnings in the private sector should work longer hours and pay more tax in order to guarantee the pension being provided to public sector workers, while those lower-earning private sector workers often have no provision at all. It is about fairness, and that means that this Government have to take the tough decisions, however unpopular, to put the situation right.

Jackie Doyle-Price: My hon. Friend makes my point much more powerfully than I do.

Hywel Williams: On 30 November, the Prime Minister said:
	“We rejected the idea that we should level down public sector pensions.”—[Official Report, 30 November 2011; Vol. 536, c. 931.]
	Does the hon. Lady agree with that?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I totally agree with that comment. I do not recognise any criticism that we are levelling down public sector pensions. We are trying to take this forward in a consensual way.
	I welcome the fact that in our proposed reforms we are sticking with defined benefit systems. Many private sector schemes have had to migrate to defined contribution schemes because of the unaffordability of their existing schemes. We recognise that public sector workers are going to have to make a much bigger contribution, but
	they are doing so to achieve benefits that would be much more expensive if offered to workers in the private sector.

Sheila Gilmore: One of the things that might have brought more money in and created some fairness in the pensions system would have been to limit the tax relief on payments into private pensions to the basic rate of tax. Would the hon. Lady agree with that proposal?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I am trying to set out a case for wider structural reform. We have a massive structural challenge across the board in pensions for public sector workers and private sector workers. As regards tax relief for pension contributions, I will not take any lectures from Labour Members given what was done under the previous Government.
	It used to be the case that the generous pension provision for public sector workers was a quid pro quo for working in the public sector, as higher salaries were traditionally enjoyed more regularly in the private sector. That is no longer the case. I refer to the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) about average salaries in Wales, which show that public sector workers there often enjoy much higher levels of reward than private sector workers. This will reduce dynamism in the labour market and make us less competitive. Our economy benefits greatly from having people moving from the public sector into the private sector so that we all enjoy their expertise, but when there are such significant levels of differential between salaries, that is not going to happen. If we then add in the benefits that come from the generous pension provision, it becomes impossible for people to move from one job to another.
	Let me give an example. In my last job, I worked for the Financial Services Authority, where I had a very senior colleague who had worked for the Bank of England and the FSA for some 28 years. She was offered a very highly paid job with a bank, as one would expect—we all expect bankers to be offered higher salaries than public sector workers. When she worked out the cost implications of moving from her job, with 28 years of a final salary pension, compared with what she would have to be paid by the bank to come anywhere close, she was somewhat crest-fallen to realise that in the longer term she would be taking a pay cut. That illustrates the competitiveness issues raised by how much we have in our pension schemes.

Graham Stuart: In areas such as Wales and the north of England, where the discrepancy is particularly notable, small businesses and enterprises need people but they are struggling to recruit because of the level of salaries in the public sector. If we are to rebalance the economy, we need to make sure that our dynamic small businesses have equal and fair access to the labour market.

Jackie Doyle-Price: That is absolutely true. It is not very good for growth and competitiveness if we are pricing growing businesses out of the market simply because they cannot afford to recruit staff at sustainable levels.
	The motion refers to the reports by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee. While it is true that we were pleased that the reforms introduced by the previous Government were moving in the right direction, we were not satisfied that they were sustainable in the long term. The NAO would not be drawn on that specific issue, because it recognised that it was a political decision. The PAC said that the Hutton commission provided the opportunity for the Government to develop a clear strategic direction for public service pensions and that we looked forward to those detailed proposals. The Public Accounts Committee report was therefore much more sympathetic to the Government’s approach than is indicated in the motion.
	That said, the Committee did express concerns about pension reform. We expressed concern over its impact on staff morale. It would be helpful if employers and trade unions worked more collaboratively to address that. Sadly, that has not been the case to date. We also expressed the opinion that many employees did not understand the value of their pensions as part of their reward. If the colleague I mentioned earlier, who worked in financial services, did not understand the true value of her pension pot, God help any other public sector worker.
	We must ensure that we do not discourage people from saving for retirement. I therefore welcome the Government’s decision to exclude the lower-paid from any increases. Obviously, 15% of salary is a lot—

Dawn Primarolo: Order.

Brian H Donohoe: I thank Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party for securing this debate and for ensuring that the damaging pension plans continue to be at the top of the political agenda.
	As the Minister said, the SNP had choices. In relation to the final part of the motion, the SNP gave away its choices in refusing the opportunity that it had in the Scottish Parliament to vary taxes by 3p. If it had accepted the need to continue with that, it could have used it towards the contributions that are required. There has been a lot of talk and nonsense about that from Members who have now left the Chamber. They know full well that that is the case.

Eilidh Whiteford: It sounds as though the hon. Gentleman is proposing that we increase taxes in Scotland to pay for pension increases. Is that really what he means?

Brian H Donohoe: We live, at this stage, in the United Kingdom. If the SNP is suggesting that Scotland has a different set of circumstances for pensions than England or Wales, there is something wrong with the system. We live in the United Kingdom and SNP Members have to accept that. I have more in common with a joiner in Newcastle than with the director of the Royal Bank of Scotland. That is the way that they should think as well. They had choices and they denied themselves the opportunity to make them.
	This matter affects many of my constituents. My constituency has 4% more public sector workers than the United Kingdom average. Some 39,300 of my constituents work in the public sector, about two thirds
	of whom are women. The pension proposals will affect women more than men, because they are the lower-paid in society.

Mel Stride: As Christmas approaches, could the hon. Gentleman find it in his heart to congratulate the Government on taking more than 1 million low-paid workers out of tax altogether, many of whom are exactly the women he describes?

Brian H Donohoe: I do not accept that at all. This Government have put up VAT, which is affecting all the low-paid people across the country more than it is the likes of the hon. Gentleman. He should not delude himself that the situation is different.
	My mind has been taken away from this subject over the past week, because young Jack Samuel Donohoe, my second grandchild, was brought into this world at five past 12 on Monday. Jack, his mother Pauline and his father Craig are all doing very well. I mention that only because when my first grandchild was born about three weeks ago, I mentioned it in a debate and I felt that it was only right to mention the second.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will use that point to talk about how long we are all living and return to the motion.

Brian H Donohoe: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that guidance. I am sure that that is what I was about to say. In about 70 years, my grandchildren will collect their first pension. I want it to be a decent pension, regardless of whether they are in the public sector or the private sector.
	At the age of 22, I first became involved in pensions as a trustee of the pension scheme at the Ailsa shipyard where I worked. I have always had an interest in pensions as a result. Many people do not have a clue about pensions. I have always accepted that a pension is deferred income. My pension is part of my income, and pensions are the income of every person who contributes. It is income that this Government are taking from individuals. I know that and other hon. Members should know it.

Guto Bebb: I find the hon. Gentleman’s arguments very interesting. If pension contributions are deferred income, is not the disparity between pay in the public sector and the private sector in Wales even more scandalous?

Brian H Donohoe: The hon. Gentleman obviously does not understand what I have just said. It is clear that most people do not understand that pension contributions by an employer are deferred income. They are part of a person’s income and should be treated as such regardless of whether they are in the private or public sector. That should be known to everybody.
	The increase in contributions that was announced in the spending review will not be used to pay for pensions. My understanding is that that £2.8 billion is specifically to be used to reduce the deficit—that is in the Red Book. Perhaps the Minister would like to establish in his winding-up speech whether that is right. I also
	understand that the proposal was a political choice by the Government rather than being made out of necessity. They have scrapped Labour’s tax on bankers’ bonuses, which was to raise more than £3 billion in revenue, and replaced it with a tax on public sector workers’ incomes.
	Those changes are being made against a backdrop of a two-year pay freeze for public sector workers, which of course was announced on the eve of last week’s strike. That was a very provocative statement intended, I suggest, to fan the flames of dissent among public sector workers. The changes also come at a time when inflation is running at about 5%. That in itself has reduced the value of public sector pay by almost 10% in real terms, which is not sustainable in the current climate. We all understand that we have difficult choices to make, and we all understand the state of the economy, but pensions should be considered for the long term. It is patent that that is not happening.

Graham Stuart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Brian H Donohoe: No, I am just about to sum up, so I will not give way again.
	I finally wish to touch on the effects that the changes will have on our armed forces, a section of the community for whom I have great respect. It goes without saying that this punitive reduction will have a damaging impact on the morale of those who are prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice for our country. We must not punish our young men and women in the forces because one man cannot see the practical implication of his economic policies.

Guto Bebb: First, may I say that I might not be here for the wind-ups, because I have to catch a train to Brussels for Welsh Affairs Committee work? I hope that I will be able to be here, but if not, I present my apologies in advance.
	This is an important debate, and I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute. One of the disappointments so far has been the fact that many Opposition Members have implied that coalition Members, whether they are Liberals or Conservatives, despise the public sector in some way. That is simply not the case, and I refute the suggestion completely. As a coalition Member, I find such comments offensive. I depend on state schools for the education of my children, I am the son of teachers and I am married to a public sector worker, so I find such comments completely unfair. Opposition Members should consider the matter carefully before making them.
	We are aware of the importance of the public sector, so much so that we are proposing changes that Lord Hutton, the Labour peer who produced the report on the matter, said were possibly not affordable.

Susan Elan Jones: Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that he is not in fact the son of Conservatives?

Guto Bebb: That is an interesting question, and I am not sure. My father certainly ended up voting Conservative, but I cannot comment on my mother, because I think that how somebody votes at the ballot box is their choice entirely.
	We are quite often accused of attacking the public sector or introducing unfair policies, yet the coalition Government are trying to deal on a long-term basis with issues that the previous Labour Government did not deal with. When we talk about fairness, which is important in this debate, I wonder where the comments of Labour Members were on the raid on private sector pensions. Where were their comments in defence of people with poor rates of pension provision who were saving with their own money—working people saving for their retirement? Where was the Labour party when it came to defending those people when the previous Labour Government raided pensions to the tune of £5 billion a year? That was a scandal. It was not fair, but we heard nothing from Labour Members.
	Even worse, the raid on private pensions was made with the justification of helping young people back into work. In 2010, the rate of unemployment among young people was higher than in 1997. The raid was unjustified, not effective and unfair.

Sheila Gilmore: The hon. Gentleman’s 2010 figure is not wrong—[ Interruption .] Excuse me! It is true to say, however, that the money that was put into reducing youth unemployment worked and that youth unemployment was brought down from the very high level that was inherited in 1997—[Interruption.] No. Only the recession caused youth unemployment to rise.

Guto Bebb: I find the argument that my point was “not wrong” but that somehow the raid was justified to be bizarre to say the least. However, I would challenge the hon. Lady: if she thinks the raid on private sector pensions was justified because the policy miraculously worked—even though youth unemployment went up—I invite her to say that we should reduce public sector contributions because that would help in relation to youth unemployment.

Graham Stuart: The Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families held an inquiry into young people not in education, employment or training. It showed that before the economic crisis, the number of unemployed young people was on a level plane with the number when the previous Government took office. That shows that in all those years of economic growth, young people were left behind by the Labour Government before the spike after the financial crisis. What the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) said was absolutely false.

Guto Bebb: I thank my hon. Friend for the clarity of his point.
	The proposal is a reasonable one. We are aiming to protect those on lower pay. Some in my constituency of Aberconwy will be astounded by the figure given by the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain)—he stated that only 16% of public sector workers earn less than £15,000. The average wage in my constituency is £23,000 and the average private sector wage in Wales is £21,000, so there will be a question as to whether the proposal is unfair.
	That reminds me of the comments made on the CPI to RPI change. The change was illustrated with the example of a nurse or dinner lady who earns £8,000 a year. I recently did a call-in programme on Radio
	Cymru. A headmaster from the constituency of the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), as it happens, called in and stated that the change from RPI to CPI was extremely unfair because it would cost him £200,000. The average private sector pension pot is £30,000. Hon. Members can imagine that the response of the general public when they heard that comment was pretty strong. The changes that the Government are trying to make are changes for the long-term, to try to ensure that we have a system that works.
	It is imperative that hon. Members mention some of the e-mails that they have received from the trade union movement. I received one this morning from the Public and Commercial Services Union stating that the claim that the coalition is trying to protect the lower paid is not sustainable. The PCS directs us to a comment by Cathy Newman, who says that it is “fanciful” for the coalition Government to try to claim that they are protecting the lower paid. I am disappointed with that comment, but then the PCS does not bother to remind us of other comments that Cathy Newman has made. She also says:
	“Having said that though, public sector pensions, even after these reforms, will still be the envy of many a worker in private enterprise.”
	That is the key point in Wales. We are looking at how we can ensure that the people who benefit from extremely good pensions contribute a fair amount towards them. For example, will increasing a teacher’s pension contribution from 6% to 9% have an impact on their take-home pay? Yes, it will—I would be the first to acknowledge that—but it is important to state that to end up with a pension similar to what will be available to a teacher as a result of the changes, somebody working in the private sector would have to contribute 35% or 38% of their take-home pay.

Katy Clark: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Guto Bebb: No, I will not take another intervention.
	That disparity will still exist because the coalition Government value public sector workers. That is not to say that we do not value people who work in the private sector, but we acknowledge the importance of the public sector, we want to protect it and we want to bring in changes that are sustainable, fair to taxpayers and fair to the public sector. I ask any Opposition Member to tell me what is unfair about asking a teacher to contribute 9% of salary for a pension that a comparable worker in the private sector would have to contribute 35% to achieve. I ask any Opposition Member to stand up and tell me why that is fair. I see nothing.
	Finally, I will turn to the Welsh context—

Katy Clark: rose—

Guto Bebb: I want to get a few points in about Wales to finish.
	In this debate, Plaid Cymru Members have said that they are standing up for their electorate and their workers. I applaud them for that. Of course people need to stand up for those who elect them to this place, but it is also important to point out that the constituency of the parliamentary leader of Plaid Cymru has the highest rate of self-employed people in the United Kingdom. What has Plaid said about supporting the pension provision of those individuals?
	I accept that Wales has a high percentage of people working in the public sector, but in many constituencies the majority of people are striving to earn a living in the private sector. When we have a limited amount of money, the Government have a responsibility to all taxpayers to ensure that we have a system of pension provision that is fair to all. It is simply not sustainable to expect the three quarters of the people in Wales who work in the private sector or are self-employed—many of whom live in the constituencies of Plaid Cymru Members—to pay through their taxes for the pensions of those who will retire on better pensions.
	These changes will ensure that the public sector is protected, but they will share the burden in a slightly fairer way than at the moment, and I applaud the coalition for bringing forward a long-term change with courage and commitment.

Lindsay Roy: I congratulate the SNP and Plaid Cymru on their choice of debate today. I take part in this debate with a heavy heart, and with genuine anger and frustration at the way in which public sector workers, who have done such invaluable work in our communities, have been treated by this Government. Some of what I have to say is constructive reinforcement of points already made, rather than unnecessary duplication. These raw sentiments reflect the views of hundreds of public sector workers in my constituency.
	One of the hallmarks of a civilised society is the way we treat our citizens—people who have contributed immensely to society throughout their working lives. Indeed, for years there was a genuine trust and confidence in the public sector that, in return for often smaller salaries—although sometimes not—compared to the private sector, they would receive a fair, if generally modest, pension on retirement, and those pensions had been negotiated in good faith. That trust has well and truly evaporated. However, that erosion in trust has not occurred because of the Hutton report, which recognised again the need to review pension contributions as people live longer, but because of the cavalier way this Government have proceeded, on a unilateral basis, to disguise the real purpose of the precipitate 3% increase for public sector workers. To put it bluntly, public sector workers feel that they are sacrificial lambs.
	The immediate increase has nothing directly to do with the present affordability, fairness and sustainability of public sector pensions, but everything to do with a cynical attack on ordinary working people at a time of pay freezes, increased VAT, higher fuel costs and a dramatic increase in living costs. The real reason for this smash and grab raid on the public sector was blatantly to contribute to the deficit reduction plan, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams).

David Mowat: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman’s argument and he seems to be saying that he supports the proposals in the Hutton report, but does not support what the Government have done. Which aspects of what the Government are doing are not in the Hutton report?

Lindsay Roy: The Government pre-empted Hutton and were precipitate in taking forward the action with the 3% increase.
	Not only have public sector workers been penalised, but the wealthier owners in our society, particularly the bankers, have not been challenged in the same way. As taxpayers, we have bailed out the bankers, so some of the richest people in our society continue to be rewarded, and it was some of them who created this financial crisis. Patently, we are not all in this together.
	As a cover for their actions, the Government continue to peddle a number of myths, which, if Members will pardon the pun, I will try to scotch. First, it is said that public sector pensions are gold-plated. As we have heard, there are varying figures for this, but they vary between £3,000 to £5,000.
	Secondly, it is said that the public sector unions were spoiling for confrontation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Roger Williams: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point, and many of us have sympathy for those on small and medium incomes, but there are people on large incomes who also receive very large pensions. People pay taxation to provide those high pensions and that is a matter of concern.

Lindsay Roy: I do not want to be drawn to the lowest common denominator. We have already heard the issues surrounding tax relief in the private sector.
	Industrial action is a last resort and a signal of anger and frustration among our constituents. Most of my constituents had never taken industrial action in their life and hope not to do so again.
	The third myth was that the immediate 3% increase was recommended by Hutton; it was not. The fourth is that the intensive and serious negotiations between senior Ministers and senior trade union officials had continued right up until the 11th hour; they had not. Senior leaders last met on 2 November. To add insult to injury, this coalition Government decided to break the pension link with the retail prices index and the consumer prices index, thereby having a significant detrimental effect on the value of pensions, with a drop of between 11% and 14%.
	All mainstream political parties fully recognise that there needs to be a comprehensive review of public sector pensions to ensure fairness, sustainability and affordability. At no time did we pretend that challenging decisions would not have to be made about contributions, entitlement and retirement age. Reform was to be strategic and phased and it would inevitably involve difficult decisions as people are living longer. It is now incumbent on the Government to engage as a matter of urgency in serious and meaningful negotiations at the most senior level and as immediately as possible with trade unions to agree an acceptable settlement.
	Fundamentally, we need to draw up a long-term plan for decent pensions in the public sector, to continue to engage high-quality recruits, to retain the many committed public servants who do a tremendous job on our behalf and to award fairly those who reach their pension age. I therefore urge the Government to go home and think
	again, rescind these unfair short-term changes and to bring to the table a fair, affordable and sustainable plan for long-term pension reform.

Iain Stewart: Although it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy), I must confess some disappointment that I have not yet heard from a member of the Scottish National party. In my short contribution to this debate, I should like to focus on what I think is the Scottish nationalists’ real motive behind the motion and the debate on public sector pension reform—their ambition for the Scottish Parliament to have full control over public sector pensions as part of its drive towards fiscal autonomy and full separation. Let me draw the House’s attention to the words last week of the First Minister, Alex Salmond:
	“The way to stop this Parliament and Government being hamstrung by the policies of the UK Government is to give us the financial independence that we require in order to do that.”
	That is clearly his aim. [Interruption.] And from a sedentary position, Scottish nationalist Members endorse it. That aim is at the heart of the motion.
	Notwithstanding the local variation within the devolved Administrations over the administration of pension funds, to which my right hon. Friend the Minister referred, it would be a hugely retrograde step to move away from a unified United Kingdom public sector pension scheme.

Stewart Hosie: There is no unified public sector pension scheme, but there is a police pension scheme, a firefighter pension scheme, a Scottish teachers’ scheme, a local government scheme and an NHS superannuation scheme. They are all different; there is no unified scheme. The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong.

Iain Stewart: If the hon. Gentleman forgives me, I was using shorthand. I am well aware that there are different schemes for different professions within the public sector, but in a UK context they are broadly similar between Scotland and England.
	Paragraph 5.26 of the Hutton report reads:
	“There has been scope for some variations in terms to meet local circumstances, but the resulting pension schemes have essentially been the same as those established by the UK Government. That has, for example, helped to prevent pension terms becoming an obstacle to transfers of staff and skills within a sector of the public service. It seems reasonable to continue with this approach.”
	Paragraph 5.27 reads:
	“The key design features should be part of a UK-wide policy framework that extends to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, with limited adaptations of other features to meet local circumstances.”
	I agree with that but it would be hugely disruptive to try to break apart what has been a unified system up until now.

Michael Weir: How does the hon. Gentleman square that with the Minister’s accusation about the Scottish Government not making changes to the pension scheme?

Iain Stewart: As I said, in quoting from the Hutton report, local variations can be provided for, and that is exactly what my right hon. Friend the Minister said. There is no inconsistency at all.
	Most public sector pension schemes—with the exception, I think, of the local government one—are pay-as-you-go schemes. There is not a separate fund, a pot of money or assets that are invested and then pay out. The current pensions are paid for from current receipts and underwritten more widely by the Government, with the expectation that tomorrow’s pensions will be paid for largely by tomorrow’s contributions. With fiscal autonomy or full separation, however, how would all that be disaggregated? It would lead to an enormous muddle over who was liable to pay for what and over who would be liable for the shortfall in future pension payments accrued under the current system? Were we to move down that road, I would wish to train as an actuary, because a lot of them would make a lot of money from disentangling everything. [Interruption.] Indeed, they earn a good amount of money as it is. But they would earn even more.

Stewart Hosie: The hon. Gentleman cannot argue that these are in-year contributions and then make the case that there is a pension pot requiring actuarial rules. There is either a pot of money that is paid for and needs to be disaggregated, or there is not, but he has just said that there is not one because it is paid for in-year. Which is it?

Iain Stewart: That is not my point at all.

David Mundell: It is just a smoke screen.

Iain Stewart: Absolutely. It is just a smoke screen.
	It would create an enormous muddle if we had to pull apart the pension contributions, and we have heard absolutely nothing from the Scottish nationalists about how they would do that.

Gordon Banks: Although there might not be a pension pot, there is a pot of responsibility.

Iain Stewart: I am sorry but I did not catch the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Gordon Banks: There is a pot of responsibility. There might not be a pension pot, but there is a pot of responsibility, and it is that responsibility for future pensions that the SNP would have to bear.

Iain Stewart: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point.
	As well as the nightmare of disaggregating the fund, a range of dynamics would be set in train that would be difficult to forecast. I remember when the Scottish Executive set a pay increase for teachers that was more generous than that given to teachers in England—I think it was back in 2001. That resulted in a significant transfer of teachers wanting to work in Scottish schools because of the more beneficial terms. If we move from a unified pension scheme, we will set in train in those difficulties in accounting for who is responsible for paying what.

Sheila Gilmore: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Iain Stewart: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not give way. I have been quite generous, and I want to bring my remarks to a conclusion shortly to allow as many other Members as possible to take part.
	The other thing about which we have heard nothing from the Scottish nationalists is how they would pay for a more generous pension scheme in Scotland—if, as I
	assume, that is their intention. In the confines of a short speech, I shall not go into the whys and wherefores of the cost of separation from the United Kingdom; my point is that we should consider pension reforms in the context of the United Kingdom. There are passionate views on both sides about what that future should be, and I completely respect the views that many hold in arguing for a sustainable pension for the future, which is what we all want.
	The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) is not in his place now, but earlier he referred to his new grandson. I recall following him in a debate a few weeks ago in which he announced to the House the safe arrival of, I think, Rosie, his new granddaughter. It is those children—those being born now—for whom we should be looking to ensure we can afford a decent pension, whether in the private or public sector, when they reach retirement. I hope that we can come to a decent consensus and conclusion on pensions, but it is not helped when the Scottish nationalists raise a smokescreen and attempt to turn this into a constitutional point, in order to achieve their aim of separating Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. Breaking up that system would be a nightmare.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before we proceed with the debate, I need to change the time limit again, because there are still more speakers left than time will allow for. I am reducing the limit to five minutes per contribution. Again, I cannot calculate the consequences of interventions. The time limit has gone from seven to five minutes because things are taking longer; therefore, it may be necessary to change it again, although I hope not. Members can either take less than five minutes or choose not to take any interventions. It is up to them.

Graeme Morrice: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall try to take less than five minutes, which is predicated on my taking no interventions.
	I welcome this afternoon’s debate, although I am somewhat surprised that the Scottish National party, whose Members have not given a speech yet, has chosen the topic of public pensions, given the very thin ice on which they find themselves with this issue. While 300,000 public sector workers and over 70% of the people of Scotland backed last week’s day of action, the SNP sided with the Tories and Lib Dems, and refused fully to support pensions justice. Not for the first time, the SNP’s warm words do not match up to its actions. Many are now asking: what is the difference between the SNP Administration in Holyrood and the coalition Government here? The SNP implements Tory cuts in public sector pensions, pay, jobs and public projects. Indeed, last week’s revelations about the submission to the Hutton inquiry from the Scottish Government’s Scottish Public Pensions Agency showed that the SNP is prepared to suggest even deeper cuts to pensions than those proposed by the Tory-led coalition. Perhaps the SNP Members here today can explain why their party in Scotland is doing the Tories’ dirty work for them.
	Like, I am sure, those of numerous other Members, many of my constituents have contacted me to condemn the Government’s actions on public sector pensions. They have already had forced on them a change in the pension calculation from RPI to CPI, which Hutton says represents a 15% cut in pensions benefits.

Eilidh Whiteford: Why did the hon. Gentleman not vote against the move from RPI to CPI when he had the chance?

Graeme Morrice: What I am not supporting is this coalition Government’s position on public sector pensions, and I am certainly not supporting the SNP and Scottish Government input into the issue. When they had the opportunity, they went to the Scottish Public Pensions Agency and argued for a position that was even more draconian than that of the Tories and Lib Dems.
	Many people face plans to increase contributions by an average of 3.2%, but, as we heard from several hon. Members, not a penny of the money raised will go into pension schemes. The constituents who contacted me are hard-working, public sector employees carrying out vital jobs. They have kept our public services going and have already made a major contribution to tackling the deficit. They have endured a pay freeze for two years and face an increase of only 1% when the freeze ends—in effect, another pay cut. They are not only angry about the Government’s proposals to make them pay more and work longer for less pension but are incensed at the insensitive and misleading way in which Ministers have dealt with this issue. Above all, they are fed up with hearing about “gold-plated public service pensions” and other misinformation about this complex issue.
	The Hutton report clearly rejected the idea that public pensions are “gold-plated”. Figures from the National Association of Pension Funds show that the median salary-linked public sector pension currently paid out is worth £5,600 a year, compared with £5,860 in the private sector. Of course, there are many medium and low-paid workers in the private sector who have little or no pension provision, which is a serious problem, but that is not a reason for public service pensions to be attacked by this Government. The artificial divide that the Government have sought to foster, pitting public against private, is failing those at the heart of the debate—the millions of people who need a good pension on which to retire.
	To conclude, it is time for the Government to come clean on this issue and drop the myths and misinformation about public service pensions that they have been peddling for months. Public service pensions were reformed by the previous Government and are both affordable and sustainable. The Pensions Policy Institute has estimated that existing pensions reforms have reduced the immediate cost of benefits by 12.5% and should result in savings of around £13 billion on the NHS, teachers’ and civil service schemes, spread over a 50-year period. The question now is whether the Government choose to negotiate a fair and reasonable deal or continue with their ideological drive to undermine public services, demoralise public service workers and destroy their pensions.

Michael Weir: I congratulate the hon. Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice), as it takes a special kind of brass neck to attack the SNP
	attitude to strikes when his own party leader condemned the strikes and the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were quite happy to sit here and debate it on the day.
	We in the SNP are committed to public sector pensions that are affordable, sustainable and fair, but we believe the coalition Government are wrong in their policy. It is blatantly unfair to increase public sector workers’ contributions to their pensions schemes at this time and in this way. Frankly, it is nothing more than a naked cash grab to reduce the deficit and it does nothing to address the sustainability of pensions over the longer term. It is especially wrong to impose an additional 3p tax on already hard-pressed households that are facing pay freezes—it will get worse over the next two years, as the 1% increase announced by the Chancellor last week is highly unlikely to keep pace with the rate of inflation—significant increases in national insurance contributions, higher VAT , rising inflation and rocketing costs for fuel and energy.
	Indeed, it has been calculated that the impact of pay freezes and pay restraint over three years is costing public sector workers 15% of the value of their income, while the change from RPI to CPI, which I am glad my hon. Friends voted against, could worsen benefits by a similar amount. That is a dramatic reduction in living standards both for those working in the public sector and for pensioners.
	Throughout this pensions debate, many Government supporters have consistently referred to gold-plated pensions in the public sector and, frankly, given the impression that anyone retiring from the public sector receives a substantial pension. That is utter rubbish: many public sector workers are in low-paid jobs and their pension entitlement is in line with what they earn and pay into the schemes, so the amount they get paid as pensions is correspondingly modest. Most public sector pension payments amount to less than £5,600 a year, and in local government the figure falls to £3,000, while 50% of women pensioners receive less than £4,000 a year, or £80 a week. That is hardly a fortune, especially in comparison with the grotesque amounts paid to the disgraced ex-bankers who caused the economic mess in the first place.

Brandon Lewis: Does the hon. Gentleman not think that there is at least some fairness in a system that puts several thousand pounds more into the pension pot of the lower-paid workers whom he mentioned, who will no longer pay for the largest pensions in the public sector under the new scheme?

Michael Weir: But the lower paid are being hit in every other way. They are being hit by higher VAT, the higher fuel price and everything else. Their living standards are falling.
	Lord Hutton’s report also firmly rejected the claim that public sector pensions were gold-plated. It seems to me that the answer is not to attack public sector pensions, but to take action to try to help private sector pensioners. Unfortunately, however, previous attempts by Government to persuade people to opt out of state pensions, and the state second pension, into private pensions, and the mis-selling that went on, have undermined confidence in private pensions, especially among those on lower incomes. If the Government really want to do something
	about pensions, they should think about how they can encourage people in private occupations to save for their pensions.
	For many years, we have been debating the future of pensions and how to encourage people to save more, but increasing contributions by such a large amount at a time when family budgets are under so much strain may well reduce the number of people who save for the future. There is a real chance that many will feel unable to make the larger contributions and will fall out of pension schemes, which could be a disaster for both the future of the schemes and the public purse. My hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) cited the results of an FBU survey, which suggested that 27% of people could fall out of their schemes. In his autumn statement, the Chancellor threw petrol on the flames of public sector discontent by casually introducing the idea of regional pay, which, if implemented, would have a serious impact on Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the north of England.

Ian Murray: I have a tremendous amount of respect for the hon. Gentleman, but will he tell us what were the SNP’s proposals to the Hutton review, so that we can make an objective assessment of its position in relation to that of the coalition Government?

Michael Weir: I was about to deal with the position of the Scottish Government. They have taken positive action to help to protect household budgets by, for example, freezing council tax for the rest of the parliamentary term, increasing the Scottish living wage to £7.20 an hour for all staff for whom they are responsible, and committing themselves to imposing no compulsory redundancies. In contrast to the Westminster Government, the Scottish Government have sought to focus on protecting Scottish household budgets.
	The amendment tabled by the Labour party referred to the devolved Administration. In Scotland—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The amendment was not selected. As the hon. Gentleman knows, he cannot refer to an amendment that has not been selected, and I am sure that he is not going to do so.

Michael Weir: Much of the debate has concerned public pensions in Scotland, Madam Deputy Speaker. I mentioned the amendment merely in passing, but I apologise for doing so.
	There are five public sector schemes in Scotland—for NHS workers, teachers, the police, firefighters and local government—all of which are subject to constraints. Formal approval is required from the Treasury for legislative changes to the NHS and teachers’ schemes. It controls the purse strings. Scottish Ministers can determine the design of the police and firefighters’ schemes, although to date they have been negotiated on a UK-wide basis, a position supported by the Labour party. Scottish Ministers can decide on the funded local government scheme as long as the scheme regulations comply with primary legislation.
	The Scottish Government sought to protect public sector workers in Scotland from the measures proposed by the UK Government, but the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made it absolutely clear that he would reduce
	the Scottish budget if they did so. In a letter to the Finance Secretary, John Swinney, on 5 September, he stated:
	“If you decide not to take forward these changes, the Treasury will need to make corresponding adjustments to your budget. I would have to reduce the Scottish Government’s budget by £8.4million for every month's delay.”
	The Scottish Public Pensions Agency issued a document putting forward options. Its contents were not Scottish Government policy, nor were they SNP policy, and at no time have the SNP and the Scottish Government made such suggestions. The document simply set out options and factual information. It is ludicrous for the two main parties to have a duopoly of despair and to attack the public sector based on the document—the SNP has done much more for public sector workers in Scotland than either of them has done in this Chamber.

John Robertson: It is an honour to follow that rant by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir). I have great respect for him, and I never thought I would see the day when he would lose it, but there we go.
	I had prepared a longer speech than I am able to make under the current time constraint, but I do want to make a few points. Thinking of the two Government parties reminds me that this is Christmas time, and as Scrooge is one of my favourite characters I am waiting for one of them to come up with a few statements such as that we should “reduce the surplus population” or, “Are there no workhouses?” That seems to be their policy on pensions and pensioners.

Michael Crockart: Does the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that 1 million pensioners in Scotland are now £5.30 a week better off because of this Government?

John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the extra minute his intervention gives me.
	I found it surprising that the nationalist parties wished to hold a debate on this issue as I could not remember their raising it in the past. In fact, so bad was my memory that I contacted the Commons Library to find out when a nationalist Member had last raised the issue. This was the response:
	“Thank you for your enquiry which was passed to me by the Library’s Business and Transport Section. You asked for statements in the House by Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru MPs on public sector pensions. Unfortunately, there were barely any mentions of public sector pensions so I have included references to pensions in general in case they are useful.”
	The House of Commons Library staff could find only four examples of the SNP raising this subject, and those examples were far from “useful”. I felt relieved that I did not give the Library staff too much work to do.
	The Library searched back to 2006 and found that the hon. Members for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) and for Moray (Angus Robertson) have not made any references to pensions in the Chamber during that time. When the Library staff asked if I wanted them to search back even further, I was worried they would have to call in an archaeologist. The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel
	Williams) said in his opening speech that some parties’ Members did not raise this topic; I suggest he looks at his own house first.

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman’s party has had 36 opportunities to raise the issue since the Government made their public pension proposals, so why has it not raised it for debate in the House?

John Robertson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me a further minute, and I will now carry on with my speech.
	The hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) has referred to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) removing, when he was Chancellor, the £5 billion tax break to the insurance industry, which was worth more than £100 million at the time. However, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues always let slip from their minds the actions of their Iron Lady. I have not seen the recent film on Margaret Thatcher, but I am reliably informed by someone who has that, sadly, it misses out how in 1980 she broke the link with final salaries, thereby hurting 10 million pensioners at the time and millions more since, and that that cost a minimum of £15 billion a year. That puts the £5 billion into perspective. I notice that the hon. Gentleman is no longer in his place; I think he left the Chamber about five seconds after finishing his speech. His train must have been leaving early.
	Let me return to the question of why this is an important issue to me and my constituents. I have 13,500 pensioner households in my constituency. We have one of the highest concentrations of pensioners in Europe and the highest amount of single women pensioners in the entire country. About 6,500 claim pension credit in my constituency alone, which is consistently ranked seventh out of all parliamentary constituencies, so hon. Members can see why this subject is so important to me.
	My home town of Glasgow is a fairly youthful city compared with others in Scotland, however it has a considerable and growing elderly population. We face large and severe pockets of pensioner poverty—my constituency is, sadly, not immune to that. In addition to the 8% of Scottish pensioners who live in absolute poverty, one in 10 over-65s are classed as “materially deprived”. When I was elected for my constituency in 2000, four out of five single pensioner households in Scotland lived on an annual income of £15,000 or less. So hon. Members can understand why I feel that we should not be heading for a race to the bottom on pensions. I want good pensions for those in both the private and public sectors.
	I recall a debate in 2002 when the Minister for Universities and Science, the right hon. Member for Havant (Mr Willetts) complained about the then Labour Government using misleading tactics. He must share my anger at the current Government’s misleading statistics on public sector pensions, for example, the constant use of enormous figures for overall pensions liability. There is a frequent tactic to cite figures as a proportion of a single year of GDP, ignoring the fact that payments on pensions are spread. To listen to the Government, we would think that these pension schemes are all in a ruinous state, but as of 31 March 2010, local government pensions in Scotland had a total of 226,554 active members making contributions, and 158,511 pensioners
	and dependants in receipt of payments. The local government scheme in Scotland has funds worth more than £20 billion, which is equivalent to a fifth of Scottish GDP. It could pay out all its pensions for the next 20 years without a single penny more in contributions—there is currently a £300 million surplus.
	The reason I am standing up to speak today is that we have to stand up for the pensioners of the future. I believe, as I said in my speech in 2002, that all parties should put aside political points of view and stop their point scoring on pensions to make sure that they represent the people who really count. That offer was refused by those now on the Government Benches. I still make that offer, because I still think that we should all sit down to solve the pension problem as a group, not just as individuals.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I am going to have to change the time limit again if we are to get all the speakers in. I am going to reduce it to four minutes from the next speaker. I make the same point as I have made every time I have reduced the time limit, which is that interventions are not included in that calculation. If extra time is added for interventions, some Members will now not be called in this debate. I hope that is clear.

Katy Clark: I strongly welcome the chance to debate this topic. I will focus very much on the Government, rather than on what the SNP Administration in Edinburgh are going to do, because the focus has to be on making sure that we have national schemes that ensure that everybody in this country has a decent pension. The negotiations are happening down here, but the historical reality has been that the Scottish schemes have simply led to a mirroring of whatever has been decided in the national discussions. So people in Scotland are looking closely at what the coalition Government are doing. It is very unfortunate if we try to do anything other than maximise the pressure on this Government at the moment.
	When we have debates on this issue, Government Members all too often raise the appalling situation of private sector pensions in this country. We do need to treat that as a priority, because the loss of manufacturing, the rise of low-paid and insecure jobs in the private sector, and the decision by firms to take payment holidays and by employers to fail to invest in private pensions schemes when times are good have led to so many private schemes coming to an end. As we have already heard, however, on average public sector pensions in this country give people only up to about £5,600 a year. The reality is that those people will not be able to live on that kind of income in retirement.
	I believe the debate we need to have is about how to set up schemes in both the private and public sector that ensure we are saving sufficiently both individually and collectively to ensure a decent income in retirement. I am therefore concerned that the Government are moving away from the decision on auto-enrolment, which will happen in May 2015 rather than April 2014. The Government’s proposals for public sector pensions mean
	that people will have to pay more with the 3.2% increase, will have to work longer and will get a worse pension at the end of it.
	We have heard a lot about teachers from both the Minister and from the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) and teachers are a good example. We hear so much about the deficit but this debate is not about that; it is about the long-term arrangements that must be put in place. The Government’s proposals are not about the sustainability of the schemes. We must ensure that both employers in the public sector and individuals are putting enough in. The proposals for teachers mean that compared with the current scheme, which costs 20.5% of pay with the employer paying 14.1% and the individual 6.2%, the employer’s contribution would be reduced to 10.5%. We are seeing that throughout the proposals put on the table by the Government.
	The Government are using the economic situation to cut their contribution, as an employer, to public sector pensions while at the same time increasing the contributions of the worker. Many people will opt out of pension schemes if the proposals go ahead. Let us ensure that over the coming weeks we put pressure on the Government so that they seriously consider public sector pensions and make proposals that will lead to pensions that people can live on.

Nia Griffith: I want to pay tribute to all those public sector workers who work hard, often in gruelling and unglamorous tasks, day in, day out. Some are very highly qualified and have chosen to work in the public sector, passing up opportunities to work more lucratively in the private sector. Traditionally, the pay-off has been job security and pensions. Those who have perhaps not been so lucky as to get many qualifications are often in thankless tasks for which they get very modest pay—cleaners, refuse collectors and so on. They receive low wages and meagre pensions. The average public sector pension of £5,600 and the average for local authority workers of £3,000 are far from the gold-plated myth peddled by the Conservative party and its friends in the media.
	Back in 2007-08, there were tough negotiations on public workers’ pension schemes, and I am sure that I was not the only Member who received correspondence, particularly from teachers. The then Labour Government entered into dialogue and negotiation, however, and unions played their part responsibly, accepting the need to make public sector pensions sustainable. Changes were agreed. The deal negotiated with the previous Government in 2007 made costs stable, and the National Audit Office described it in the following way:
	“The 2007-08 changes are likely to reduce costs to taxpayers of the pension schemes by £67bn over 50 years, with costs stabilising at around 1% of…GDP or 2% of public expenditure. This”
	is “a significant achievement”. Before the Government made any changes at all, public sector pensions had both been reformed and made affordable.
	I turn now to the division between the private and public sectors, which is a disgraceful way to approach this topic. Frankly, we are all involved in both, whether through family members or people in our communities. John Hannett, the general secretary of the Union of
	Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers—a union that operates entirely in the private sector—says that it supports the strikes:
	“We support our colleagues in the public sector in their fight for fair and decent pensions and to protect the services which our members rely on.”
	We all know that the real scandal is in private sector pensions. Sometimes we are told that the costs or the recession have meant that nine tenths of final salary pension schemes in the private sector, once the most popular arrangement, are now closed. The fact is, however, that the employers have realised that they can get out of their obligations to society and their employees, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the costs of supporting people in retirement.
	One of the biggest dangers is that more people will opt out of pension arrangements. There are three main risks associated with that. First, if people earning less than the average are asked to contribute about £80 a month, they will face a terrible choice of either feeding and clothing their children now or paying towards a pension for their retirement. That will leave many short of a pension when they retire.
	Secondly, that leaves a huge problem for the state, because of what it will have to pick up. We will be sitting on a ticking time bomb. With private sector pensions going and public sector workers opting out, a huge number of people will be totally reliant on the state in their old age.
	Thirdly—a problem for the present day—if people are not contributing now, there will soon be a cash crisis in those pension pots, which is something I do not think has been fully addressed. There will be a present-day shortfall in the money available for paying out to the people who have paid in to their pension schemes. Those are very real problems. Imposing a 3% increase on people in this undemocratic and devastating way is completely unacceptable. It needs a total rethink, and the sooner the better.

Iain McKenzie: I think that we all agree that there is an economic crisis in the UK, but it was caused neither by excessive public spending nor by the “gold-plated” pensions and pay of public sector workers. It was caused by a recession triggered by the banking collapse of 2007. Employees in the public sector have been subject to pay freezes and continuous efficiency savings, and time and again they have risen to the challenge and accepted that they need to play their part in these difficult times. They now find the future quality of their retirement at stake and their much-prized pensions, which are possibly one of the main attractions of a public sector career, will be greatly reduced.
	The Government tell us that the average public sector worker will be better off following the change to their pension, but what they quote as average earnings is not what Opposition Members regard as average earnings. Many public sector workers in my constituency of Inverclyde earn nowhere near the average the Government quote and will not be better off with this change in their pension. The Government tell us that we must follow
	the lead taken on pensions by the private sector, but I believe that that would be a race to the bottom on pension provision.
	The private sector visited it pensions long before the world-wide finical crisis hit. It took contribution holidays and savagely stripped employees of decent pensions while excluding new employees from joining final salary schemes. Indeed, I recall my predecessor, the late David Cairns, some time ago naming and shaming a major private sector employer in my constituency over its unacceptable cuts to its pension scheme.

Pete Wishart: We have just discovered that Labour Members are down to a one-line Whip, which means they will not vote on the motion. Surely they could put aside what they describe as their historic hostility to the SNP and do the right thing by public sector workers by supporting the motion. Why are they not backing it?

Iain McKenzie: I thank the hon. Gentleman and will now carry on.
	We want to see not an equality of misery in pensions, but fairness. Public sector pensions are not gold-plated, but I accept that they require collaborative review. Instead, public sector workers are being told that they must work longer, pay more and expect less. Trade union leaders who called the strike action on 30 November were branded as militants by Government Ministers, and the Prime Minister described the day of action as a “damp squib”—hardly diplomacy, if they are indeed engaged in negotiations.
	We again see the Government promote policies that are hurting but not working, and their plan to guide us out of these difficult times is clearly failing. For Scotland, this is a double whammy, with the SNP Government in Scotland in many ways excelling this Government in the failure league. We need to accept, as the Hutton report did, that public sector pensions are not gold-plated and that many public sector workers, especially women, will retire on an annual salary pension of around £5,600 a year.

David Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that many Labour Members are aghast at the SNP’s duplicity? On one hand the SNP is attacking the Opposition, and on the other hand it is putting forward proposals that are draconian, compared with what the Opposition have done. Indeed, it could do otherwise if it wanted.

Iain McKenzie: I agree. Public sector pensions are not gold-plated, and many, especially women, who work in the public sector will retire on an annual pension of some £5,600—a paltry £100 per week. They ask for fairness in their pensions now if they are not to ask for benefits in their retirement.

John McDonnell: I just want to make a couple of brief statements, and I apologise for not being present during the opening speeches, but I was actually speaking at a conference on vulnerable workers.
	I just ask the Government to let the negotiators negotiate. When the civil service unions attended the scheme’s talks this week, they were told what they can and cannot discuss. They cannot discuss pension age, despite the previous assurances that Ministers have
	given them. All schemes have to relate to the state pension age, so, even though some schemes may be able to afford a pension age of 65 years old, the Government are refusing to allow them even to negotiate it. The unions are also told that indexation is off the agenda, and that the index has to be CPI, not earnings, as Hutton recommended, or RPI, as currently.
	The schemes have to be career-average. The civil service unions are not allowed to discuss contributions, which have to increase by 3.2% so that the average contribution is 5.6%. Costs always have to be within the scheme’s limit, but in addition the only transitional protection that they can discuss is 10 years for those aged 50, plus the three to four years of tapering for those just below that age. Even if the unions find savings, they cannot use them in another way for further protection. They cannot discuss Treasury assumptions about the discount rate, actuarial reductions for early retirement or any normal pension scheme issues. They are told also that they cannot discuss the abatement rules, which enable staff to take their accrued pension and work on. They can discuss the accrual rate, but that is all pre-determined by the other elements not being open for negotiation.
	So, what the civil service unions are allowed to discuss in the negotiations is nothing of substance, and in reality we face further industrial action because the Government will not allow negotiations to take place. The Government take an intimidatory attitude by putting things on the agenda and, if they do not get their way, then taking them off.
	I echo what other Members have said about the contempt with which negotiators have been treated. I watched the discussion between the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr Maude) and Mark Serwotka, the general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, when the Minister accused him of not being at meetings. I now discover that Mark Serwotka was at every meeting that the Minister was at—matched on every occasion. If the Government are not deliberately provoking this dispute, they are walking into further industrial action because of their refusal to allow negotiations to take place.
	I have toured around, talking to individual unions, and I have spoken to several union executives this week, but the depth of anger does not come from general secretaries or from executives; it comes from rank-and-file trade unionists, most of whom have never taken industrial action in their lives but all of whom are dedicated to the public service that they seek to provide.
	So I just appeal to the Government: start negotiating properly; allow proper discussions to take place; seek to avoid industrial action; stop the abuse—the “damp squib” provocations that the Prime Minister has made; and start telling the truth about what people are going to get, because they are going to work longer, get less and pay more. If we look at the calculations that have been made using the Government’s own calculator, we find that no one will get more unless they work for many more years, and teachers and others do not want to work until they are 68 years old just to get some form of pension income that they can live off.
	I urge the Government to get back to the negotiating table and to take their restrictions off the negotiations. They are dealing with people who are dedicated to
	public service, who are willing to settle and who do not want to seek further industrial action. I warn the Government that if they do not negotiate properly there will inevitably be more disruption and more industrial action—and that the Government will be to blame for it.

Sheila Gilmore: I do not intend to repeat the statements about the importance of public sector pensions that have been made so eloquently by many of my colleagues.
	I am surprised that SNP Members, who among others have called this debate, have apparently not wanted to speak in it, because only one has done so. However, some of the comments they have made by way of interventions need to be addressed. It is not true to say that Labour Members have not raised the subject of public sector pensions in this House. Perhaps SNP Members were not here on 30 November to hear what the Leader of the Opposition said at Prime Minister’s questions and were not here during the Opposition day debate that followed, when several Members from my party made very strong speeches in support of public sector workers and on the pensions issue.
	Moreover, in this week’s Opposition day debate on the economy, only one SNP Member was present, for a short time—the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr MacNeil). I will not attempt to pronounce the Gaelic name for his constituency because, as a lowland Scot, Gaelic is not native to me, and I am not going to pretend that it is. That was the extent of their interest in debating the economy and the issues that are so important in underpinning this debate on pensions, because unless we get the economy right, we will be in some difficulty. Today, several SNP Members left the Chamber early, presumably to put out their press releases to say how they had raised this important issue, but in reality they have not.
	In the motion, SNP Members condemn the coalition Government for not being prepared to give them the money directly so as to be able to relieve some, but by no means all, public sector workers in Scotland of the contribution increase. They cannot have their cake and eat it within the system. They cannot have the Barnett consequentials when they like them and decide that they do not want them when they do not like them. Yes, it would be different if they achieved independence, although at that point we would have to ask, “How are you going to afford all the things that you say you are going to afford?”

David Mundell: Is the hon. Lady as surprised as I am that we have not heard a single mention of independence from the SNP Benches? As I understood it, that was their solution to all the pension issues in Scotland.

Sheila Gilmore: I suspect that in the fantasy world of the debate on independence, as it tends to be, SNP Members would indeed say that that is the answer, but they have to know how they would fund that and about issues to do with tax and making people as well off as possible.
	During the SNP Member’s brief appearance in Tuesday’s debate on the economy, he kept talking about the Scandinavian economies. Of course, in the Scandinavian economies there is a very different view of taxation. It is
	disingenuous of the SNP to want to pose as a low-tax party and tell people that they can have wonderful public services and, at the same time, council tax freezes—which, by the way, are very regressive because they most benefit the people who are best off. The SNP has to decide where it wants to be. It deliberately put such a sentiment in the motion because it wants to be able to say that Labour Members will not support it.
	We are in support of public sector workers. We do not think that what the Government are doing is right. We feel, very strongly, that we have to stop what this Government are doing, which is constantly to pit one group of workers against others. They are setting public against private, setting people in work against people who are out of work, and stirring up what I heard described on two occasions on Radio 4 at the weekend as an atmosphere of anger and bitterness. In the discussions on phone-in programmes about what is happening, all the clips were of people shouting at each other, saying, “Why should I, as a private sector worker, pay for your pension?” No commentator said, “Where is that anger being generated from?”, but it is being deliberately stirred up by this Government—

Nigel Evans: Order. I am sorry, but we have to start the wind-ups now.

Eilidh Whiteford: This has been a wide-ranging debate and I think that there is agreement across the House that pension provision in the long term needs to be affordable, sustainable and fair, not just for public sector workers but for all old-age pensioners.
	Although we agree on those long-term objectives, the central contention of the debate has been that the short-term measures to reduce the deficit will hit public sector workers but be of no benefit to them. The issue at the heart of the debate is that the proposed 3.2% increase to public sector pension contributions is a straightforward cash grab by the Treasury on public sector workers. It has nothing to do with building long-term sustainability into our pensions system, but is unequivocally a short-term measure to cut the deficit.
	Several hon. Members have pointed out that this is not fair and not affordable for a public sector work force who are already feeling the full effects of austerity measures that have gone too far, too fast. Most public sector workers are facing a two-year pay freeze, a 1% pay rise in 2013, increases in VAT and national insurance, and inflation of more than 5%. The cost of their essentials, such as heating, food and fuel, is going through the roof. The pressure on household budgets is intense and is getting worse.
	In that context, increasing pension contributions for short-term gain is just the wrong thing to do. It is being done at the wrong time, for the wrong reasons and in the wrong way. It carries the risk that large numbers of people, especially part-time workers, will drop out of schemes altogether because of the immediate financial pressures that they face.
	I think, and most Members on both sides of the House agree, that public sector pensions matter. They matter to the one in five people who are directly affected.
	They matter to the rest of us who depend on public services and who realise that our public service work force are critical to the delivery of high-quality services. Above all, they matter to all of us who care about the welfare of older people in retirement. All of us want to enjoy a decent level of income. For parts of the country that have a high dependency on the public sector work force, the issue is even more acute.

David Mundell: What I do not understand about the hon. Lady’s logic is that the Scottish National party has said that it wants to have a referendum on independence for Scotland in the next four years. The area on which that would most significantly impact is pensions and pensioners, yet in her contribution and in the contributions of her fellow SNP Members, we have heard nothing about independence or about how pensions would be provided, guaranteed or sustained in an independent Scotland.

Eilidh Whiteford: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Order Paper and the motion that we are debating. It will come as no surprise to anybody in the House that I believe in independence—I am an SNP Member. However, we are talking about public sector pensions and the Government’s proposals. It might be a nice distraction for the Government to talk about other issues which are equally relevant to Scotland’s future.
	One of the most disappointing things about this debate has been that the Government have tried to defend their proposals by constantly highlighting the disparity between public and private sector pensions. We owe a debt to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) for pointing out the detrimental state of private sector pensions. When the Government responded to the interim Hutton report, my understanding was that they accepted its conclusion that pensions should not become a race to the bottom. However, speaker after speaker on the Government Benches has resorted to the argument that because private sector pensions are really poor, public sector pensions should be levelled down. That will not in any way address our pensions challenge. It is not sustainable and it is not fair to anyone in the private or public sector.
	We have some of the highest levels of pensioner poverty in Europe. Currently, 30% of pensioner households and a massive 43% of single pensioners, most of whom are women, are in receipt of income-related benefits, whether that is pension credit, housing benefit or council tax benefit. Having large numbers of older people on means-tested benefits is not the way to do things. It is the price that we pay for poor pension provision. It is not an efficient way to support people in retirement.
	The other big myth that has been well and truly blown out of the water today is that public sector pensions are gold-plated. Quite simply, they are not. Member after Member has pointed out that most public servants retire on modest incomes. The PCS points out that its average member’s pension is only £4,200 year. That is £80 a week, which is only £4 above the Government’s pensioner poverty figure. If such people’s pensions are reduced or they opt out because of the new conditions and contribution increases, it will simply put the burden back on means-tested benefits to keep people out of abject poverty in their old age.
	In local government, in which 67% of the work force are women, the average woman’s pension is only £2,800 a year. Almost half of local government workers are on pensions of less than £3,000, and even in the NHS, in which salaries are much higher because of the professional qualifications involved, three quarters of members are still on pensions of less than £9,000 a year.
	The Government have tried to sell us their proposals on the basis that low and middle-income earners will be protected from contribution increases, and may even be better off as a result. That is one of their key claims. However, because of the switch in indexing from RPI to CPI, all public sector workers will lose out in the longer term, and they will all be working longer. That indexing switch has been mentioned in the debate, and I am sorry that more Members did not vote against it when they had the chance back in February. They have a chance to rectify that now, and I hope that they will support us in the Lobby today.
	Perhaps the most misleading aspect of the Government’s approach to the contributions increases is that they have said there will be protection for low-paid workers. As the Minister admitted earlier, the contributions of part-time workers will be calculated on the basis of full-time equivalent salaries, which will have massive implications for women, who make up the vast majority of part-time workers. About 32% of the women in our work force work part-time so that they can combine employment with unpaid work in the home or looking after others.
	The Government have said that workers on incomes under £15,000 will not pay increased contributions, and that other low earners on up to £21,000 will pay reduced contributions, but when we look at the small print, we see that those thresholds, calculated on the basis of full-time equivalent salaries rather than their actual take-home pay, will mean that even professional people such as nurses and teachers who work part-time will have their pension contributions increased.

Alan Reid: But in Scotland, the Scottish Government decide the pension contributions of teachers, health service workers, local government workers, the police and firemen. If the hon. Lady believes in her argument, does that mean that when the SNP implements the contribution increases in Scotland, it will make an exemption for low-paid part-time workers?

Eilidh Whiteford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to point out two things. The first is the Scottish Government’s living wage, which has been raised to £7.20. That will significantly protect the household income of low-paid workers. The second and more substantial is the role of the Scottish Government in the matter. There has been a lot of chat around the Chamber about the room for manoeuvre that the Scottish Government do or do not have. Let me make it clear that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury wrote to the Cabinet Secretary in Scotland, John Swinney, pointing out that the Treasury would cut the budget by £8.4 million a month—that is half a billion pounds over the spending review period—if the Scottish Government did not impose the pension increases.

David Hamilton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Eilidh Whiteford: Not at the moment.
	The unions recognise that the Scottish Government have very limited room for manoeuvre. Their choice is very simple: they impose the increases or take the money out of another part of the budget, in other words pay twice. It is clear that even if the Scottish Government were to ignore the requirement and try to find the money from somewhere else, the Government would cut that money from the budget.

David Hamilton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Eilidh Whiteford: Not on that point.
	I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for pointing out the approach that the Government have taken in the negotiations with the trade unions. It seems to me that they have used a similar approach with the Scottish Government, whose choice has been limited. They have been dictated to, and there has not been a basis for a sensible, grown-up negotiation.
	Another point made in the debate has been about the Scottish Public Pensions Agency. The key point is that it was not recommendations that were put forward but a series of theoretical options. That was part of the process of the Hutton consultation, and it was quite proper for the Scottish Government to set out a range of theoretical positions. I am sorry that that has dominated the debate so much.
	We all recognise the challenges of pension reform, but we want it to be done in a truly equitable way that does not encourage a race to the bottom. We have to acknowledge the progress that has already been made to put public sector pensions on a more sustainable footing and the mechanisms that already exist, but punishing public sector workers through a short-term tax grab will do absolutely nothing to tackle the inadequate pension provision in the private sector. It is nothing but a tax grab, and it is disappointing that the Government have relied so heavily on the arguments that we have heard today. In tough times, all people realise that they have to take a share of the pain, but public sector workers do not want to carry the can.

David Jones: This has been a lively and at times impassioned debate—quite understandably, because the issue that we have been discussing is of the most extreme importance.
	I should like to put a number of matters squarely on record at the very start of my remarks. First, I wish to make it absolutely clear that Government Members greatly value the services that the public sector performs, both in contributing to the economy of this country and in providing the services that each and every one of us needs. To suggest that we do not is grossly to misrepresent the case.
	Secondly, I wish to object most strongly to the expression “gold-plated pensions”, which has been bandied about on the Opposition Benches. No one on the Government side of the Chamber is in any way suggesting that public sector workers enjoy gold-plated pensions—I have not heard that expression voiced by Government Members. Nevertheless, it was clearly a deliberate tactic on the part of Opposition Members to misrepresent the position by suggesting that Government Members regard the public sector as feather-bedded—we do not.
	The fact of the matter, as one hon. Member mentioned some time ago, is that this time bomb has been ticking for a very long time indeed. The previous Government sought to address it but did so only partially. This Government are taking the difficult decisions that will be needed to put public sector pensions on a sustainable footing for the years to come.
	The hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), who opened the debate, suggested that it was positively Government policy for public sector workers to work longer, pay more and get less in return. The fact is that the Government’s proposals are aimed at ensuring that this generation and future generations of public sector workers receive pensions that properly reward their efforts after a lifetime’s work.
	I echo the congratulations offered on the arrival of Jack and Rosie, the grandchildren of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe), but I should point out that they will benefit from the Government’s proposals. As the hon. Gentleman says, at the age of 70 they will require sustainable pensions, and they will thank this Government for taking the necessary decisions to put pensions on a sustainable footing.
	Lord Hutton’s analysis—many hon. Members said that they agreed with the general thrust of his report—shows that there are three drivers for reform, the first and most important of which is longevity. The average 60-year-old in this country will live 10 years longer than the average 60-year-old in the 1970s lived. Over the same period, the annual cost of public service pensions has increased by a third—it reached £32 billion last year. That simply must be addressed.
	The second driver is flexibility, because public sector pension provision no longer reflects how the modern labour force works and lives. The third driver is fairness, which is also important. The current schemes, which are predominantly final salary schemes, mean that lower-paid public sector workers effectively subsidise the pensions of the higher paid.
	The reforms implemented by the previous Labour Government have not been sufficient to reverse the huge increase in the costs of public sector pension schemes as a consequence of increased longevity. The position is straightforward: either public service pensions are reformed, or our children and grandchildren—Jack and Rosie—will bear the cost of a virtually unsustainable financial benefit.

William Bain: The OBR fiscal sustainability report, which was published in July, makes it quite clear that public sector pensions are affordable. I refer the Minister to the chart that illustrates that the public sector pension share of gross domestic product will fall to 1.6% by 2060. Surely that does not tie up with his last remark.

David Jones: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the comments of Lord Hutton, who pointed out that his commission felt that there was a rationale for short-term cost savings in recognition of a substantial, unanticipated increase in longevity. In practice, these savings can be realised only by increasing member contributions. To suggest that it is impossible to address this problem in any way other than by increasing contributions is frankly fallacious and deceitful, and the Opposition know that.
	The hon. Member for Arfon and others asked what negotiations were taking place. It is important to put it on the record that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has met the NHS unions today, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office is also meeting the civil service unions later today. Negotiations are indeed proceeding apace, and to suggest that they are not—as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) did—is wrong.
	The hon. Member for Angus (Mr Weir) claimed that 27% of workers will leave public sector pension schemes as a result of increased contributions. The Government have set out that those earning less than £15,000 will see no contribution increase whatever, and those earning less than £21,000 will see a maximum increase of 1.5 percentage points by 2014-15.

Nia Griffith: Does the Minister understand that that £15,000 limit is the full-time equivalent salary? If a person works fewer hours and earns only £8,000, but on a salary that full-time would come out as £16,000, they will pay increased contributions?

David Jones: Of course, that is indeed the case, as it was under the proposals that the Labour Government put forward. The fact of the matter is that it will not be the case that 27% will leave pension schemes. In fact, the independent Office—

Michael Weir: That is not what I said. I quoted a survey of FBU members which said that 27% may leave that scheme.

David Jones: I can do no better than refer the hon. Gentleman to the Office for Budget Responsibility, which indicated that 1% would opt out.
	There is no doubt that this debate has raised passions, and that is understandable, but the Government’s aim is clear. We will do our best to ensure that public sector workers will continue to have access to pension schemes that are guaranteed, index-linked and inflation-proofed. In the current economic climate, there are many other workers who would be only too grateful to have a similar benefit. Most public sector workers will see no reduction in the pension that they receive, and some indeed will receive larger pension income on retirement than they would otherwise—

Stewart Hosie: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.
	Main Question accordingly put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 11, Noes 242.

Question accordingly negatived.

Local Government Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill (Money)

Queen’s recommendation signified.

Bob Neill: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Local Government Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.
	Going back to yesterday’s debate, I appear to be the “accredited person” to move today’s motion. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is not in his place today, but this is a private Member’s Bill moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), so this is a unique debate.
	We are debating the motion because the Government are keen that the Bill in its amended state should move forward. The passing of a money resolution is an important step in that process. The costs to local authorities of implementing the new duties in the Bill—to give written notification of decisions and to review the decisions—are seen as a new head of expenditure to be met out of the grants that local authorities already receive from central Government. Similarly, any increase in the administrative costs of the local ombudsman service associated with the Bill will be seen as a new head of expenditure to be met from the grant that the ombudsman receives from central Government to fund the organisation. The motion refers to payments under other Acts being increased as a result of the Bill, because, technically, a new head of expenditure is a notional increase for the purposes of Commons financial procedure, even though it might not, in fact, give rise to an increase in expenditure.
	Against that background, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch for his work on the Bill. I thank him for working so constructively on the proposed amendments, which mean that I can confirm the Government’s intention to support it in its amended state. The Bill was last debated on 18 March. At that stage, the Government were unable to support it. However, it received its Second Reading and the amendments made since make it acceptable to the Government.
	We think that the Bill will perform a valuable function. It is right that if a local authority decides to stop or impose restrictions of the kind referred to, the reasons should be set out in writing. There should also be an appeals mechanism if the decision is a negative one. The fast-tracking procedure is helpful. We think that the costs associated with the Bill are, in fact, negligible.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I do not want to detain the House unduly. We do not wish to vote against the motion, although I should say that the Bill is being proposed at rather an interesting time. Both Houses of Parliament spent an enormous amount of time debating the Localism Bill, to which many amendments were tabled but were rejected by the Government on the grounds that they would impose
	additional burdens and costs on local authorities. It seems odd, to say the least, to find that the Government support a Bill that will definitely place additional responsibilities and costs on local authorities. I also believe that, in this age of localism, the Government are displaying some extraordinarily centralising tendencies, on which the Minister may or may not wish to comment.

Bob Neill: At risk of prolonging proceedings, may I say that the hon. Lady will understand that the Government can support the Bill because of the amendments, which effectively mean that a local authority will be obliged in stating its reasons to put in writing the product of a process that it must have gone through in any event? We are simply asking authorities to record and set out what they will already be doing as a matter of good governance, so the costs and burdens are rather negligible.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: Well, that remains to be seen. I do not think it is a good idea to legislate on the basis of chance and hope.
	It is important, however, that the Bill proceeds to be debated properly in Committee. There are an enormous number of health and safety issues, and Opposition Members are concerned to ensure that citizens are adequately protected. We are also concerned to ensure that extra burdens are not placed on local authorities, especially at a time when they are the subject of such stringent cuts from central Government. We think that is a most unfair approach.
	We will not oppose the motion. We want the Bill to go into Committee for thorough discussion, but I must make it clear that that does not mean that we support its provisions in any way.

Christopher Chope: I am sorry that this debate is limited to 45 minutes, but I am delighted that the Government have moved this motion and that they support the Bill. The Minister might have confused someone following our proceedings when he said that the amendments made the Bill acceptable to the Government. My hon. Friend is jumping the gun, because the Bill before us is as printed; it has not yet been the subject of any amendments. It will be for the Committee to decide whether the Bill should be amended. In due course, if it goes through Committee and comes back here on Report, it will be for the House to decide whether the Bill is in a form it can accept.
	It is unfortunate that there has been such a significant delay between Second Reading on 18 March—consideration was not completed on that date, but the Bill received a Second Reading in June—and the subsequent period, during which we have been waiting for the money resolution. Without a money resolution, a Standing Committee cannot consider a private Member’s Bill that requires such a resolution or even to get the issue before the Committee of Selection. A Committee to look at the Bill cannot be set up unless the Government deign to introduce a money resolution.
	It used to be the custom and practice that a money resolution for a private Member’s Bill that had been given a Second Reading would, as night follows day, be introduced by the Government within a short period
	thereafter, enabling the House to proceed with the Bill by setting up a Committee for its detailed consideration. What is happening now, however, and has been happening throughout this long first Session of the current Parliament, is that the Government are using their power in relation to money resolutions effectively to curtail the private Member’s Bill process. There have been times when not a single private Member’s Bill has been in Committee, because the Government have been using the money resolution procedure as, in effect, a veto.
	As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am inherently supportive of my hon. Friend the Minister, and I do not want anything I am saying to be interpreted as being particularly critical of the Government. If they are indeed enthusiastic about the Bill, however, it is a pity that it will go into Committee, at best, shortly before the very last private Member’s day. It seems as though the Government are able to have the best of both worlds. They are able to say that they support the Bill, but by delaying the money resolution—although I accept that we are discussing it now—they are delaying its progress and implementation.
	Today is something of a red letter day. This is my first private Member’s Bill that has secured a Second Reading, it is the first that will be given a money resolution—I am anticipating the House’s decision—and it will, I hope, be able to go into Committee. I am grateful to all my colleagues who have supported it. I am also encouraged by the fact that the Minister does not think that it will cost anything. He said in his speech that the motion was technical, and would not result in significant additional public expenditure. The whole purpose of the Bill is to reduce the burden of public expenditure and regulation on ordinary members of the public, and I should have been concerned if the resolution had been required in order to increase it significantly. I take the point made by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods) in that regard.
	I am delighted that we have at last been given the chance to adopt a money resolution, and I hope that the motion will be carried without the need for a Division. I look forward to working with Members in all parts of the House in due course to establish whether the Bill can be improved in Committee in a way that will satisfy my hon. Friend the Minister, but he must not anticipate matters and assume that it has already been amended, because it certainly has not been.

Clive Betts: It is rather an unusual experience to hear the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) support a private Member’s Bill in the Chamber. He generally has another function in life: to prevent new rules and regulation contained in private Members’ Bills from being inflicted on people.
	I want to raise two issues. First, discussing a money resolution relating to a Bill giving new powers to a person who does not currently exist is a slightly strange experience. I understand that there is no local government ombudsman at present, which is a matter of concern to me. The other day I received a letter from the permanent secretary at the Department for Communities and Local Government, Sir Bob Kerslake—in response to a letter I sent to the Secretary of State—which provided the helpful explanation that the process for appointing an
	ombudsman had been halted because the Government were reconsidering the nature and focus of the post in the light of last July’s public services White Paper.
	We have all experienced appointment procedures in which the candidate was not deemed suitable, there was disagreement about the candidate, or we reviewed what the candidate should be doing in the light of the appointment process itself. That appears to be the case in this instance, but the difficulty is that the interviews for the post were held in February. The Select Committee on Communities and Local Government was due to hold hearings to ratify the appointment, but it was only in November that the Government decided to terminate the process. That is nine months of dealing completely inadequately with an appointment to an extremely important position.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman’s criticism of the Government rather mirrors mine of the delay in tabling the money resolution. In the light of his concern and interest, would he be willing to serve on the Public Bill Committee to look at the measure in more detail?

Clive Betts: I will come on to my concerns about the Bill in a second.

Nigel Evans: Order. We are not here to discuss the Bill. We are just discussing the money resolution, which is rather narrow.

Clive Betts: Yes. I made my point about the ombudsman, because there are concerns about the delay to the service itself. Candidates have been waiting for nine months, and that is not an acceptable way of proceeding—I wanted to put that on the record.
	I understand your strictures, Mr Deputy Speaker, about the money resolution and not discussing the Bill. However, I return to what the Minister said about not envisaging the measure costing anything to local authorities. There is potential for costs and the spending of extra money precisely because of the way in which the Bill is drafted and how it deals with the extension of powers relating to health and safety. It creates a relationship between the ombudsman and the local authority that is different from the relationship in any other matter that an ombudsman considers. On any other matter, the ombudsman can produce a report that an authority is bound to consider and tell the ombudsman what action it will take, but in this instance there is no requirement for the authority to act in line with the ombudsman’s recommendations.
	As drafted, the Bill includes a clear right of redress for the ombudsman against local authorities, including the ability to compel them to pay compensation to event organisers for events that are unreasonably banned or restricted. That is where money comes in. The power that is granted in respect of that issue is different from the power in other issues with which the ombudsman deals. The power to spend the money does not rest with the local authority—it effectively rests with the ombudsman—so we are almost giving a blank cheque or an undetermined ability for the ombudsman to decide in any case how much the local authority should pay in compensation, with the cost to local council tax payers determined by an unelected official, rather than elected councillors.
	That is a fundamental issue of public expenditure that the Bill, as drafted, opens up. The Minister may discuss amendments, but the promoter has said that the Bill has not been amended yet. As drafted, that is precisely what it would do, and I have serious concerns about it. The Minister cannot say that under the Bill as drafted there are no spending commitments, but he can say that there are potential spending commitments, which will be determined by unelected people. The counter-argument might be that, as the measure applies only to events that have been unreasonably banned there is a right for judicial review—in which case, why do we need the Bill? However, there is the potential for money to be spent.

Christopher Chope: The hon. Gentleman will be reassured to learn that the amendments I have in mind will address his concerns about costs, and I hope that that is a consolation for him.

Clive Betts: I am more than happy to accept the hon. Gentleman’s assurance—perhaps that is what the Minister was alluding to. However, it is rather difficult to debate the Bill as drafted when there are amendments of which we are not aware that would alter its capacity to incur public expenditure. That is what we are addressing and, on that point, I shall conclude.

Bob Neill: I thank the Members who have contributed to the debate, and I wish to set their minds at rest.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for his comments. I am sure he agrees that he and officials from my Department have had a chance to hold constructive discussions in the time that has elapsed since the Bill was last before the House, and that he will therefore be able to propose amendments to which the Government will be happy to lend their support.
	I also think the concerns of the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts) about costs will be allayed. Although I am always loth to correct the hon. Gentleman, who is Chair of the Communities and Local Government Committee, he will appreciate that the functions of the local government ombudsman, as we call that post, are legally carried out by the Commission for Local Administration in England, and while the post of chair of that commission is vacant, two commissioners are still in place, Dr Jane Martin and Ms Anne Seex, and Dr Martin is the acting chair of the commission so there is, effectively, a local government ombudsman in place and able to fulfil those functions.
	Question put and agreed to.

LOW DOSE NALTREXONE

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Angela Watkinson.)

Nia Griffith: First, I want to make it clear that this debate is not about fighting for a very new and expensive drug. Campaigns about drugs are often brought to the attention of Parliament because a patient is fighting to be allowed to have a new and expensive treatment on the NHS. Some of these new drugs are not just expensive because they are new; because of the complex processes required to make them, they will, in fact, often continue to be expensive to produce. Such situations raise dilemmas for decision makers as to how access to such drugs can be funded.
	This debate is about a very different problem: making an existing drug that is modestly priced available for the treatment of a wider range of conditions. Clinical trials are needed to get full approval for the drug under discussion, but I ask the Minister to consider whether there is any possible way in which it could be made more widely available.
	Sometimes patients are faced with unacceptable options for treatment and find themselves researching possible new treatments. That is usually a road that leads to disappointment, but occasionally something useful is stumbled upon, such as low dose naltrexone, or LDN. The problem is that it is what is called an “orphan drug”, which means its patent has expired, so if someone does research on it, a generic manufacturer can subsequently steal the business.
	I understand that naltrexone is proved safe in its normal mode of use, and now has a clinical history of 11 years of use in the UK with no problems reported and only minor side effects. LDN is also very low cost, and can be used to treat many conditions that are both chronic and often very expensive to treat with more conventional remedies. Sometimes those more conventional remedies have severe side effects, which then have to be treated with more expensive drugs.
	The purpose of this debate is to ask how a drug such as LDN could be made available to patients who ask for it. The most desirable route would be via clinical trials leading to marketing authorisation and then official acceptance from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence and the NHS. A much cheaper and more immediately practical route is to recognise that LDN is a safe choice for patients without many of the risks of drugs currently in use. Doctors could therefore be given official advice not to deny it to patients who want it or wish to acquire it from pharmacists who make it as a “special” at a fair price. There could also be a mechanism for protecting doctors and allowing patients choice. At present, doctors are in a difficult position. If they prescribe anything that is not on an official list, they leave themselves open to criticism, as well as to being sued and possibly losing their right to practise.
	The third route is to get it listed as an over-the-counter drug, such as aspirin or paracetamol. I understand that it is considered safer than paracetamol which is sold over the counter, so this might be a reasonable option that would make prescription very easy.

Annette Brooke: I congratulate the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) on securing this debate. I am sure that, like me, she has a number of constituents who are benefiting from this drug—I refer particularly to members of the Purbeck and Wareham multiple sclerosis group. It is so frustrating that they cannot get hold of something, through the NHS or in some form that is easily accessible, given that it is definitely making a difference to their lives. I am sure that she would agree that there is a fear that perhaps they will not be able to get it one day. What do they do then?

Nia Griffith: The hon. Lady is quite right. These people fear that if they change from one GP to another, or if people are less sympathetic towards this drug—obviously this is something that people have to be convinced about—they may well not be able to get hold of it. Unless there is some form of authorisation and some form of making it an official drug that is more widely available, they do run the risk that she describes.
	The problem is that many patients feel let down because what they see as perfectly good therapies, which are cheap but out of patent, are being withheld when patients want them. When doctors cannot refute a patient’s choice, they can still deny it to them, because clearly the issue of their professional conduct is involved. If the NHS recommends another treatment, quite possibly one that costs thousands and has drug company support, it is often difficult to get the research done to prove the validity of a drug such as LDN.
	Some 5,000 people in the UK with multiple sclerosis use LDN, and a few thousand more use it for other conditions, such as Crohn’s disease, cancers, fibromyalgia, autism and so on. Their GPs usually prefer not to sign NHS prescriptions for LDN—indeed, they may refuse to do so—but there are instances of GPs then charging patients for private prescriptions, explaining that they are worried that NHS prescribing guidelines would prohibit them from prescribing LDN and so they would end up in serious trouble if they did so. One GP in Glasgow who prescribes a lot of LDN was reported to the General Medical Council for doing so recently. My constituent Andrew Barnett has told me that his GP has said that his lawyers advised against it, so he writes my constituent a private prescription and charges him £8.50 a quarter for doing so. My constituent then also has to pay for the LDN itself, at a cost of £17.50 a month.
	Some 100,000 people in the UK have MS, only 12% of whom use drugs offered by the NHS. Some of the drugs available are risky and very expensive, and there are questions about how effective they are. Yet some 5% of MS sufferers choose to use LDN, because they feel that it helps them and does not have the risks of some other treatments. LDN has proved to be safe in trials at very high doses, but it is unpromoted and hard to get. Because there are now people making this choice, there must be a way to get this treatment legitimised on the NHS for patients who ask for it. However, we are told that without substantial trials that is not possible. It is very difficult to find a way to fund any such trials because the drug itself is already licensed and therefore drug companies would not be able to recoup the cost of funding the research by marketing the drug; there would be no money in it for them.
	We live in an age where information, including real scientific papers and trials reports, is easily available. Patients who are really determined to make the most of their lives, despite terrible illnesses, and who have the wherewithal to look into the research do seek out information and solutions. We have been using LDN in the UK for some 11 years. Naltrexone has been trialled at high doses to treat heroin addiction and is known to be safe, so the only real thing missing is the marketing authorisation from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency—MHRA—for a formulation of low-dose naltrexone, perhaps in liquid or capsule form. A trial would add proof—or not—of its efficacy.
	The cost of a trial is probably considerably lower than the cost of a high-tech drug, because the drug itself is so cheap. Estimates suggest that a single trial can be done with some £7 million, but that is just an estimate based on £1,000 per patient a year for the monitoring specialists, plus up to £3,000 a year per patient for LDN. There would be the costs of recruiting 500 to 800 patients and then something to cover the analysis of the results.
	There are no systems available, however, for patients to translate their choice of therapy into a legitimate request, even when they vote with their feet in large numbers. Doctors do not see any danger in the choice except that they worry they might be denying people a more effective option, but, as patients have pointed out, if they need what is perceived to be a more effective option, they can take it alongside LDN anyhow.
	My constituent Andrew Barnett, who is highly intelligent, scientifically minded and analytical, has made the assessment that LDN seems to have stopped his disease developing further. The constituents of the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) have confirmed the same belief. My constituent regrets very much that he did not start using it earlier. If he had done so, perhaps some five years ago, he feels that he would still be working and contributing actively to the economy.
	Doctors do have to say no to treatment choices for the sake of the patient, but when they have no reasons to deny an option, as is the case with LDN, that should not happen. We should try to ensure that we enable them to prescribe LDN. Doctors all tell us that without the trial, they do not have the confidence to prescribe, so patients face the potential loss of supply of prescriptions if they change doctor, quite apart from the cost of private prescriptions, which is hurtful for many patients who have been reduced to living on income support by sickness or disability.
	So, the substance of the debate is about patient access to therapies that cannot get the trials they need for reasons such as not being patentable or the lack of profit in the therapy, especially when the therapy is known to be safe. LDN seems to be the most prominent, in that there are no sensible arguments to deny it to patients who want it and those patients report great satisfaction with it in most cases. It is frankly a disgrace that such options are denied to informed patients who ask for them on the NHS. It would save the NHS so much money to allow this. LDN can be supplied for as little as £17.50 a month, compared with some other expensive drugs, such as £60,000 for Copaxone, £15,000 for Avonex or £90,000 a year for another drug that was recently in the news.
	The question is how we can get the trials and get people interested. Academics often rely on backing from pharmaceutical companies to put together their plans and proposals for a research project. It is very difficult to find academics who want to spend that time and energy if they do not know that they will get the backing. They could put in a lot of work without getting any funding for any proposal.
	We must face up to the problem of what systems we have in place to provide licensing for drugs such as LDN. One doctor I have talked to, Dr Lawrence from Swansea, tells me that LDN not only seems to have acceptable uses for people with multiple sclerosis but, he feels, has enormous potential for the treatment of cancer. That would be a very worthwhile investigation, considering that we spend so much on looking for answers and on treating the various cancer diseases. Sanctioning the use of LDN would also allow doctors to collect clinical data that could be used to monitor and help prove the effectiveness of the drug.
	Naltrexone is already an approved drug at higher doses and research and clinical trials have already shown its effectiveness at low doses to treat auto-immune diseases. Patients have difficulty in getting their GPs to write prescriptions and have to get the treatment privately, but it would be preferable for patients to work with their GPs so that their GPs can monitor them. GPs have had to seek legal advice to find out whether they should be prescribing it and lawyers have advised against it, putting them in a very difficult position.
	Among the supporters of LDN are GPs, neurologists and oncologists who have seen patients’ diseases not get worse and there are cases where such specialists have supported its use for the patient and stated that in a written letter to the GP. Even then, the GP has felt unable to prescribe the drug for fear of being unprofessional.
	Campaigners have worked with local health boards and PCTs to try to determine what knowledge there is about LDN and whether GP practices have heard of it or are using it. The responses came back negative. What can we do so that LDN is offered in addition to other drugs currently prescribed on the NHS? This is about patient choice. It would be nice to be able to make LDN available to patients on a much wider basis, but it is important that patients are monitored by their GPs when using any medication, so we do not simply want a free-for-all. We want the proper medical trials, proof and backing that is needed to show whether it is an effective drug, which will enable it to be made more widely available, but there is a real difficulty, despite the fact that the orphan drug could be a cheap option for the NHS, in funding the sort of research needed to trial it. I return to my initial request and ask the Minister whether there is any way he can make LDN more widely and easily available to patients.

Simon Burns: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) on securing the debate and hope that by the end of my comments, particularly the last section, she will feel that there is a mechanism and a way forward that she will find helpful. Like her, I am
	well aware of the interest in the subject from those who feel that LDN is a suitable treatment for a number of conditions, including multiple sclerosis, HIV and various cancers. I am grateful to her for the opportunity to clarify the Government’s position.
	I will begin by talking about the process for licensing drugs in general. An unlicensed medicine is not necessarily illegal in the way an unlicensed driver is; it just means that the regulator has not yet been given the evidence it requires to support a routine place in the market. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is responsible for the regulation of medicines used in the UK, which includes authorising applications for clinical trials and granting licences for medicines. MHRA gives licences for medicines only after evidence has been submitted to demonstrate the quality, safety and efficacy of the product for the conditions it is intended to treat. That system, whereby licences follow evidence, protects patients and means that there is always a robust, systematic and independent assessment of the safety and suitability of licensed medicines.
	In the UK, naltrexone is currently only fully licensed in 50 mg tablet form. That dosage is used to help patients remain free from dependence on heroin, methadone and similar opiates and to help those who are dependent on alcohol, but the drug is not currently licensed at any dose for the treatment of the other conditions that the hon. Lady rightly mentioned, because the evidence necessary for a licence does not currently exist. However, naltrexone is being prescribed by some doctors in doses of up to 7 mg on an individual patient basis. This is referred to as low-dose naltrexone.
	The reason MHRA has not looked into licensing LDN is that it has not received any application or evidence to support it, which means LDN is currently unlicensed. That does not mean that it is necessarily unsafe; it is just that a licence for its use in this country does not exist. The current position is that when a patient needs a medicine an appropriate licensed product should be used. If it is not available, doctors can prescribe a different licensed medicine if they think that it will do the job. If neither of those options is available, an unlicensed medicine may be considered. LDN currently falls into that last bracket. As it involves a significantly lower dose than the licensed form of naltrexone, and as it is untested, it is regarded as an unlicensed medicine.
	Legislation supports clinicians when they want to prescribe an unlicensed medicine that they think is necessary to meet a patient’s particular needs. The MHRA checks that the medicine is being manufactured to the right standards, in a safe environment and with suitable materials. Any unlicensed product manufactured in the UK must be manufactured to the specification of the doctor, nurse, dentist or whichever professional prescribed it in the first place. The important point is that the use of an unlicensed medicine is the direct personal responsibility of the professional who prescribed it. They are aware that it is unlicensed, and they prescribe it with that knowledge. The position is reflected in professional guidance, including that of the General Medical Council.
	Given that a licensed LDN product is not available in the UK, it can be supplied only as an unlicensed product either manufactured in the UK or imported from somewhere else. Most of the LDN used in this country is manufactured in the UK, but anyone who wants to
	import it must be authorised by the MHRA. In the UK, manufacturers produce a number of formulations, including LDN capsules, at strengths ranging from 1 mg to 6.5 mg, and these are produced under a “specials” licence.
	The importation of any medicinal product not licensed in the UK must be in compliance with the Medicines for Human Use (Manufacturing, Wholesale Dealing and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2005, which provides for the import of products when a special clinical need exists for individual patients and when the regulatory authority has not objected to the import. Objections may be made on grounds of known safety or quality issues, or if an equivalent UK licensed product is available. In the case of LDN, there is no ban on the import of products of acceptable quality and safety, and I hope that those comments go some way to reassuring the hon. Lady on her point about the fears of some GPs who had been or were not prescribing the drug.
	When medicines are unlicensed, such as LDN, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence does not generally assess them, so it has not issued any guidance on the use of LDN in the NHS. When NICE guidance on a particular drug for a particular condition does not exist, it is for local primary care trusts in England to make funding decisions based on their own assessment of the available evidence. On behalf of their patients, doctors can, through an individual funding request, request treatments that are not usually funded, if they feel that there are exceptional clinical circumstances.
	In this situation, a special panel that includes clinicians would carefully consider individual cases. They would use the latest available evidence and make a decision on the basis of a patient’s individual circumstances, but we recognise that there is demand from the NHS and from patients for better access to information about drug treatments, particularly when no licensed product is available, so we are keen to explore whether more can be done to support clinicians, NHS commissioners and patients in their own decision-making by giving them easier access to the best available information. That is why the Department of Health asked NICE to provide a service to support the NHS in deciding whether an unlicensed drug can be used to address an unmet need. Under our plans, NICE will commission expert assessments of the evidence that supports—or does not support—the use of unlicensed medicines, including in rarer conditions. That will help clinicians make decisions about effective treatments and address one of the access problems that patients face. As I said earlier, it is important that we preserve the integrity of the medicines licensing scheme, which is so vital to protecting patients. Any information provided will be designed to inform doctors’ decision making and patients’ choices, not to provide a simple yes or no recommendation.
	The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency is responsible for the enforcement of the advertising regulations—another important area with regard to this subject. There are also self-regulatory controls operated by the industry body—the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority—and general controls on advertising operated by the Advertising Standards Authority. Regulations state that
	“no person shall issue an advertisement relating to a relevant medicinal product which is a medicinal product in respect of which no marketing authorisation or traditional herbal registration is in force”.
	The regulations apply to any person and are not specific to the pharmaceutical industry. This prohibition does not prevent independent patient charities from providing balanced and factual information about treatment options, including any that are not licensed. The MHRA has published guidance on its website. The MHRA would investigate any complaint about a breach of the legislation, but has not received any complaint about the advertising of low-dose naltrexone. Whether a charity or another third party was promoting a medicine or providing non-promotional information would be decided on the facts of any specific case.
	The hon. Lady will no doubt appreciate that it is in everyone’s interest to see a booming medical research industry in the UK that is successful, is meeting its requirements, and is pushing forward our development and use of advanced medicines to help to bring relief to those suffering acute illnesses or long-term conditions and to help them to manage those conditions better.

Annette Brooke: The Minister is being very clear in his exposition. The question that my constituents continually ask is why the NHS is not in the least bit interested in a treatment that is so cheap, costing about 50p a day, and appears to defer care costs into the bargain. A constituent of mine has been with their consultant to see the prescribing committee of the local PCT, but we still do not have this drug on NHS prescription.

Simon Burns: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point on behalf of her constituents. The short answer is that it is simply because there have been no clinical trials to assess the drug in its low-dosage levels, and so the conditions of the NHS, under the ways in which we operate in the provision of drugs for patients, have not been fulfilled at this stage. If she will wait for a minute or two, I will get to the nub of the point made by the hon. Member for Llanelli about how we could move forward to seek to address that situation. I hope that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) will find the way forward helpful and positive.
	The hon. Member for Llanelli will no doubt appreciate that it is in everyone’s interest to see a booming medical research industry in the UK, because that leads to real improvements in the lives of patients, their families and carers, and we are determined to support it. We demonstrated our commitment to health research by increasing spending in real terms up until 2015. In August, my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health announced a record £800 million, five-year investment in a series of biomedical research centres and units, which will translate fundamental biomedical research into clinical research that benefits patients and the NHS.
	The coalition Government are committed to the promotion and conduct of research as a core function of the health service. The Health and Social Care Bill, which is now passing through another place, will turn this into reality by placing appropriate powers and duties on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, NHS organisations, Monitor, and local authorities. We will make sure that the systems and processes for commissioning by the NHS Commissioning Board and by clinical commissioning groups promote, support and fund clinical research. The Government will consult on amending the NHS constitution in order
	to support patients to have access to novel treatments and to be part of the development of wider patient benefits, so that there is a default assumption, with an ability to opt out; that data collected as part of NHS care can be used for approved research, with appropriate protection for patient confidentiality; and that patients are content to be approached about research studies for which they may be eligible to enable them to decide whether they want a discussion about consenting to be involved in a research study.
	The clinical practice research datalink will be introduced by the MHRA in partnership with the National Institute for Health Research, building on the NIHR’s research capability programme. This £60 million investment will offer data services, including providing access to data for researchers, data matching and linkage services, and data validation, to support the clinical trial and observational study work of the life sciences research community.
	The NIHR will launch an updated UK clinical trials gateway in spring 2012. That website will enable patients and the public to access information about clinical trials and will be a development of the test site launched in March 2011. To increase the number of patients who can benefit from being involved in trials via the gateway, the NIHR has also developed a free smartphone app, which is available for iPhone users and will shortly be available for Android users. It provides a practical and innovative way for patients to access information about clinical trials.
	I will now turn to the question of clinical trials that the hon. Member for Llanelli raised and that the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole raised, by default, in her intervention. I think that this explanation may provide the hon. Member for Llanelli with the basis for making progress in her quest. Clinical trials are a fundamental part of the drug development process, as she accepts. Trials and health research more generally are funded by a range of groups in the UK, in particular by the NIHR, the Medical Research Council, medical research charities and industry. The NIHR welcomes high-quality funding applications for research into any aspect of human health, including the use of LDN. Such applications are subject to peer review and are judged in open competition, with awards being made on the basis of the scientific quality of the proposals. As she has suggested, a new clinical trial will be required to support a licence for the use of LDN.
	The MHRA regulates clinical trials on medicines when they are carried out in the UK. That includes granting approval to conduct a clinical trial and ensuring,
	through inspection, that the highest possible standards are maintained. However, the MHRA does not initiate clinical trials. A clinical trial needs a sponsor. Sponsors have usually come from industry, the NHS or academia. The hon. Lady is seeking Government funding for a clinical trial to prove the efficacy and safety of LDN. I can tell her that funding is available and that university-based researchers can apply for it.
	The efficacy and mechanism evaluation programme is funded by the Medical Research Council and managed by the NIHR. It funds evaluation of the clinical efficacy of treatments. If evidence from such evaluations is promising, larger scale trials can follow. That is one of the purposes for which the NIHR funds the health technology assessment programme. That programme produces evidence on the effectiveness, cost and broader impact of treatments and other types of health care intervention. In the case of LDN, as with all other novel treatments, I cannot prejudge how successful that pathway of research might be, but I can tell the hon. Lady that a pathway does exist, as I have described.
	In addition, the hon. Lady expressed concern about whether the systems in place make provision for patients to say what research they would like to happen. I can assure her that patients can make a suggestion for the efficacy and mechanism evaluation programme to consider. Topics prioritised for funding may be advertised, inviting researchers to submit proposals for clinical trials in those topical areas.
	I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this subject and giving me the opportunity to explain the background to a matter of considerable interest to many people, not least some of her constituents and those of the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole. I hope the last part of my speech in particular, in which I have explained an existing avenue that they and others interested in LDN may wish to pursue, will be helpful to them.

Nia Griffith: May I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his very full and helpful reply?

Simon Burns: And may I, in the spirit of Christmas, thank the hon. Lady very much for the way in which she presented her case? It was quite clear from listening to her speech that she rightly felt very strongly about the issue on behalf of not only her constituents but people up and down the country who need LDN and who, at the moment, are having to go through the procedures that she described.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.